Richter−Rauzer [B60−B69]

Written by GM John Fedorowicz, GM Tony Kosten & IM Richard Palliser

Last updated Sunday, 17 July 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

he Richter is kind of like the Najdorf's little brother. For those of us not able or

confident enough to deal with the Najdorf's complexities this is an opening that is

rich in tactical possibilities but also retains a measure of solidness and sanity.

White develops his queenside quickly, aiming to castle long, followed by pressure

on the d−file, and a possible kingside pawn advance. The capture on f6, when it creates

doubled f−pawns, is a constant possibility.

TI aim to bring you up to date on the ideas of this opening both old and new.

All the game references highlighted in blue have been annotated and can be downloaded in PGN form using the PGN Games Archive on www.chesspublishing.com.

Contents

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...e6

6...¥d7 7 ¥e2 Rauzer 6...Others [B60], 7 £d2 Rauzer 6...Bd7 7 Qd2 [B61]

6...£b6 Rauzer 6...Others [B60]

7 £d2

7 ¥b5 Rauzer Various White 7th moves [B62]

7...a6

7...¥e7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 ¤b3 (9 f4 ¤xd4 10 £xd4 £a5 Rauzer 9 f4 Nxd4 & 9...h6 [B64−5] 9 f3

¤xd4 10 £xd4 Rauzer White plays f3 Black−exchanges on d4 [B63]) 9...£b6 10 f3 ¦d8 Rauzer with 7...Be7 8 Qd2 0-0-9 Nb3 [B63]

8 0-0-0

2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...h6

8...¤xd4 9 £xd4 ¥e7 Rauzer 7...a6, ...Be7 & ...Nxd4 [B66] 8...¥d7 9 f4 (9 f3 Rauzer with 9 f3 [B67]) 9...b5 Rauzer with 9 f4 [B67], 9... ¥e7 Rauzer

8...Bd7 9 f4 Be7 [B68−9]

9 ¥e3

9 ¤xc6 bxc6 10 ¥f4 Rauzer 8...h6 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 Bf4 [B66] 9 ¥f4 ¥d7 10 ¤xc6 ¥xc6 Rauzer with 8...h6 9 Bf4 [B66]

9...¥e7

Rauzer with 8...h6 9 Be3 [B66]

Press F4 or click on 'Bookmarks' (F5 in older versions) to toggle the Navigation Pane,

then click on the appropriate bookmark to go straight to that section.

Ctrl + 2 resizes the page to fit the window.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

3

Rauzer − 6...Others [B60]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 ¥d7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpp+lzppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black wants to get going on the q−side as soon as possible. This variation has a shaky

reputation. Others: 6...£b6?! This was Fed's pet line for many years, but he gave it up because of 7.¥e3!

(7.¤b3 e6 8.£d2 (8.¥e2 Kaufman,L−Hoover,N/Saint Paul USA 2000, 8.£e2

Hamdouchi,H−Xu Jun/Hyderabad IND 2002) 8...¥e7 (8...a6 9.¥xf6 gxf6 10.0-0-0

Tiviakov,S−Conquest,S/Saint Vincent ITA 2000) 9.¥xf6 (9.0-0-0 0-0 transposes to [B63]) 9...¥xf6 10.£xd6 ¥e5 Hracek,Z−Avrukh,B/Batumi GEO 1999.) 7...£xb2?! this is extremely dangerous, 8.¤db5 £b4 9.¥d2 £c5 (9...¤xe4 10.a3+− winning, Yemelin,V−Jobava,B, Abu Dhabi UAE 2003) 10.¦b1! White is almost winning by force, see 7 Be3! analysis/2009.

6...g6!? 7.¥xf6 exf6 the black structure is shattered but Black hopes to be able to play a later ...f5 and use his dark−squared bishop, 8.¥b5 (8.¥c4 is more popular) 8...¥d7 9.0-0 ¥g7 Adamson,R−Gurevich,D/Las Vegas USA 2005.

6...£a5?! this ambitious move strikes me as being quite dubious, 7.¥b5 ¥d7 8.¤b3 £d8 9.a4!? Ganguly,S−Palit,S/Calcutta IND 2004.

7.¥e2

Theory considers this best, and it is supposed to be the way to pressurize Black's setup. 7.£d2 is covered in [B61].

4

7...e6

7...a6 8.0-0 (8.¥xf6!? gxf6 9.0-0 e6 10.¢h1 £c7 11.¥h5 ¥g7 12.f4 f5 13.¤xc6 bxc6 14.exf5 exf5 15.¦e1+

¢f8 16.£d3 ¥e6 17.¦ad1 d5 18.¤e2 and White was doing well in de la Villa−Ubilava Palma 1992) 8...e6 9.£d3 White doesn't have much. 9...¥e7 10.¦ad1 0-0 11.£g3 £c7 12.¢h1 ¢h8 13.f4 ¤g8 14.¥xe7 ¤cxe7 15.¤b3 ¥c6 16.¥d3 b5 17.£h3 h6 18.¤d4 ¥b7 19.a3 ¦ad8 20.£g3 ¤f6= Stefansson,H−Zubarev,A/Las Vegas USA 1999 It was similar to a Scheveningen. Black was solid.

7...£a5 I don't trust this at all. 8.¥xf6 gxf6 9.0-0 ¤xd4 (9...0-0-0? Looks like suicide! 10.¤d5

e6 11.¤b3 £a4 12.¤c3 £b4 13.¥b5! Cutting off the Q's retreat to b6. 13...d5 The only way to save the Q. 14.a3 £d6 15.exd5 ¤e5 16.¥xd7+ £xd7 17.dxe6 £xe6 18.£h5 ¦g8

19.¦ad1 ¥d6 20.¤b5 ¦g5 21.¤xd6+ ¦xd6 22.¦xd6+− Shahade,G−Thorhallsson,T/Elbow Beach BER 2001, 9...¦g8!?) 10.£xd4 ¦c8 11.¤d5 (11.a4! gaining space, and trying to exchange bishops, Hracek,Z−Heberla,B/Czech Rep CZE 2004) 11...£c5 12.£d2 a5 13.c3 h5 14.b4 £a7 15.a4 ¥g7 16.¦fd1 ¥f8 Black's position is disgusting. 17.¥b5 ¥c6 18.¢h1 ¢d8 19.f4 ¥xd5 20.£xd5 e6 21.£d2 h4 22.h3± Kudrin,S−Paschall,W/Port Erin HUN 1999 Black's opening was a dismal failure.

8.¤db5 £b8 9.a4 a6 10.¤a3 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+pwql+pzpp0 9p+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9sN-sN-+-+-0 9-zPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.0-0

11.¥e3?! A tad greedy 11...¦b8 12.0-0 ¥e7 Now it's a normal Sicilian with the knight on a3 looking weird. 13.¤c4 b6 (13...b5! 14.axb5 axb5 15.¤d2 b4 16.¤b5 £d8 is fine for Black)

14.¥f4 ¤e5 15.£d4 ¤xc4 16.£xc4 £xc4 17.¥xc4 b5 18.axb5 axb5 19.¥d3 b4 20.¤e2 ¥c6 21.f3 e5 22.¥e3 d5= Fedorowicz,J−Gurevich,D/Seattle USA 2000 Black's development is lagging and White has control of the a−file.

11.¥xf6 gxf6 12.¥h5 is interesting.

11...¥e7 12.¤c4 ¤a5?!

12...¤e5!? Makes more sense.

5

13.¥xf6 gxf6 14.¤e3 ¦c8?

A useless move. 14...¤c6 returning from the rim was wise

15.¢h1 £b6 16.£c1 h5 17.f4 ¥f8 18.¦b1 £b4 19.£d1 ¥e7 20.¥d3 b5?

Black had to wait.

21.axb5 axb5 22.¤cd5!+−

Stefansson,H−Navrotescu,C/Cappelle La Grande FRA 2000.

6

Rauzer − 6...Bd7 7 Qd2 [B61]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 ¥d7 7.£d2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpp+lzppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The standard Rauzer move, preparing long castles.

7...¦c8

The solid 7...h6 8.¥xf6 gxf6 9.0-0-0 ¤xd4 10.£xd4 £a5 11.f4 (11.¥c4!? Shirov,A−Dreev,A/Spanish Team Championship 2010) 11...¦c8 may have been underestimated, 12.¢b1 £c5 13.£d3! White wants to keep his queen active along the third rank. (13.£d2 see Andriasian,Z−Asrian,K/Armenian Championship, Yerevan 2008) 13...¥g7 14.f5 h5 15.¥e2! Najer,E−Malakhov,V/Russian Team Championship 2009.

8.f4!

8.0-0-0 ¤xd4 9.£xd4 £a5 10.f4 the critical test, (10.¥e3 a6 11.f3 e5 is seen in Makropoulou,M−Matnadze,A/Athens GRE 2003.) 10...¦xc3! (10...e5 11.fxe5 (11.£d3 ¦xc3 transposes) ) 11.bxc3 e5 12.£c4 (12.£d3 McShane,L−Bjerring/Gelsenkirchen 1999, 12.£b4) 12...d5 Smeets,J−Gashimov,V/Melody Amber (blindfold), Nice 2010.

8...¤xd4

7

8...¤g4!? 9.h3 £b6 10.¤xc6! Solak,D−Miroshnichenko,E/Turkish Team Championship 2010.

9.£xd4 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+kvl-tr0 9zpp+lzppzpp0 9-+-zp-sn-+0 9wq-+-+-vL-0 9-+-wQPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.e5! dxe5

10...¦xc3?! 11.bxc3 ¤d5 (11...¤e4 12.£xe4! A dubious exchange sac/2009) 12.exd6! looks logical and strong. Black's queen and knight are in no shape for attack, Shabalov,A−Van der Weide,K/Willemstad AHO 2003.

11.fxe5 e6 12.0-0-0 ¥c6 13.¤b5! ¥xb5 14.exf6 ¥c6!

Alsina Leal,D−Dreev,A/Barcelona 2009.

8

Rauzer − Various White 7th moves [B62]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.¥b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+nzppsn-+0 9+L+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is an attempt to avoid theoretical lines, but should cause Black no worries. 7.£d3!? a6 8.0-0-0 ¥d7 (8...¤e5 9.£g3 h6 10.f4! Zelcic,R−Kozul,Z/Bled SLO 2001.) 9.f4

Forster,R−Sadler,M/Calicut 1993 (by transposition from a Najdorf).

7...£b6

In my opinion the best try. 7...¥d7 8.¥xc6 (8.¥a4 This nonsensical move proves nothing. 8...a6 9.¤xc6 ¥xc6 10.¥xc6+ bxc6

11.£f3 h6 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.£xf6 gxf6³ Groszpeter,A−Bu Xiangzhi/Paks HUN 1999, Black's wall of pawns give good play.) 8...bxc6 9.£f3 h6 10.¥h4 e5 11.¤f5 ¥xf5 12.£xf5 ¥e7 13.0-0-0 £d7 14.£f3 0-0 15.¥xf6 ¥xf6 16.h4² Fontaine,R−Nezar,M/Bescanon FRA 1999.

8.¥xf6

Planning to sacrifice. 8.¥e3 is standard these days, 8...£c7 9.g4!? Haznedaroglu,K−Nakamura,H/World Team

Championship, Bursa 2010.

8...gxf6 9.¤d5?! exd5 10.exd5 a6 11.¥xc6+ bxc6

9

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+-+-+p+p0 9pwqpzp-zp-+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.£e2+ ¥e6

12...¥e7 13.¤xc6 £c7 14.0-0-0 ¥b7 15.¦he1 ¥xc6 16.dxc6± Groszpeter,A−Galianina Ryjanova,J/Pardubice CZE 1999.

12...¢d7 13.dxc6+ ¢c7 14.0-0-0 ¦b8 15.b3 ¦g8 16.¢b1 £c5 17.¦he1 ¦xg2∓ Roschina,T−Gershon,A/Biel SUI 2001.

13.¤xe6 fxe6 14.£xe6+ ¥e7 15.0-0 ¢f8 16.¦fe1 ¦e8 17.¦e3 ¦g8 18.¦ae1 cxd5∓

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rmkr+0 9+-+-vl-+p0 9pwq-zpQzp-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-tR-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Martinez,M−Yermolinsky,A/Chicago 1999.

10

Rauzer White plays f3 − Black exchanges

on d4 [B63]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 ¥e7 8.0-0-0 0-0

8...¤xd4 9.£xd4 0-0 10.¢b1?! (10.f3 transposes) 10...¤xe4! (10...a6?! transposes into a bad line, Jakovenko,D−Mantovani,R/Saint Vincent ITA 2001) 11.¤xe4 ¥xg5 12.¤xg5 £xg5 13.£xd6 is Demchenko,A−Miroshnichenko,E/Moscow Open 2008.

9.f3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move has replaced 9 f4 as the mainline. Black has been struggling to find the correct

plan.

9...¤xd4 10.£xd4 a6

10...£a5 11.£d2 ¦d8 12.¢b1 b6 This looks mighty passive. 13.h4 ¥b7 14.£e1 ¦ac8 15.¥d3 ¥a6 16.g4 ¥xd3 17.¦xd3 (17.cxd3!? looks stronger) 17...b5 18.£d2 b4 19.¤e2 ¦d7 20.a3!?± Moreno,J−Norris,A/Mondariz ESP 2000 Strange idea, but it works!

10...¥d7 11.¢b1 £a5 12.£d2! The ¤d5 trick gains an important tempo. 12...¢h8 13.h4 ¦fd8 14.h5 ¦ac8 15.¤e2?! Letting Black off the hook (15.h6!? looks good for White)

11

15...£xd2 16.¥xd2 h6 17.¥e3 b6 18.¤d4 e5 19.¤b5 ¥xb5 20.¥xb5 d5= Myo Naing−Dwyer,D/Bandar Seri Begawan BRU 2001

11.h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-wQP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPP+-+P+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...b5

11...£c7 12.¢b1 b5 13.£d2 b4 14.¤e2 ¦b8 15.g4 a5 16.¤d4 a4 17.¥d3 e5 18.¤f5 ¥xf5 19.gxf5 a3 20.b3 d5 21.¦hg1 ¢h8 22.h5 ¦fd8 23.h6± Benjamin,J−Gulko,B/Seattle USA 2000.

12.¢b1

This position is very difficult for Black. 12.¥xf6?! Giving Black a break. 12...¥xf6 13.£xd6 £xd6 14.¦xd6 ¥b7 15.¤d1 ¥e5

16.¦d3 ¦fc8 17.¢b1 h5 18.¤f2 ¦c7 19.¦d2 ¥f4 20.¦e2 ¦d8 21.a3 a5© Reinaldo Castineira,R−Tyomkin,D/Lisbon POR 2001 White's forces are a bit tangled.

12...¥b7

12...£a5!? 13.£d2 threatening the ¤d5 idea forces Black's hand: 13...b4 14.¤e2 e5 15.¤c1 ¥e6 16.g4 ¦fc8 Black is doing well, Pelletier,K−An,Z/Halkidiki 2003.

13.£d2

Alternatively: 13.g4 £c7 (13...¦c8 14.¥d3 £c7 (14...¤d7!? Timofeev's idea, Dominguez Perez,L−

Dreev,A/Sabadell 2008) 15.£e3 ¦fd8 16.¤e2! a standard regrouping, the knight may come to d4 or even join in the attack via g3, see Svidler,P−Wells,P/Bunratty 2009) 14.£d2 From here White's queen keeps an eye on c2 and controls Black's central breaks. In addition White has the knight e2 to d4 maneuver. (14.¥e3!? White can leave the queen on d4 as long as c2 can be defended. 14...¦fc8 Black has to arrange some sort of central break, but how? 15.g5 ¤d7 16.h5 b4 Black realizes how

12

desperate the situation has become, but it's too late. 17.h6 gxh6 18.gxh6 ¥f6 19.¦g1+ ¢f8

20.£xb4 ¦ab8 21.¦xd6 ¥e7 22.£d4 e5 23.¦xd7+− Drazic,S−Mantovani,R/Bratto ITA 2002) 14...¦fd8 (14...d5?! is met strongly by 15.e5! ¤e8 16.¥xe7 £xe7 17.¤e2±) 15.¤e2 e5 Black threatens the d5 push, but White's reply puts an end to that notion. 16.¥xf6! ¥xf6 17.g5 ¥e7 18.¤c3 White angles for a bishops of opposite color middlegame with the light squares being more important than the dark. 18...£c5 19.¥d3 ¦f8 (19...b4 20.¤d5 ¥xd5 21.exd5 a5 22.h5 a4 23.¦h4 is good for White) 20.¤e2 ¦ad8 21.¤g3± Bologan,V−Obodchuk,A/Poikovsky RUS 2002 White has all the chances.

13...£c7!?

Under the circumstances this is best, but Black continues to struggle for counterplay. 13...¦c8 14.¥d3 GM Bologan plays these positions very well for White. 14...¤d7 (14...d5

15.e5 ¤d7 16.¥xe7 £xe7 17.f4 ¤c5 with some play) 15.a3 (15.¥xe7 £xe7 16.¥e2!?

Dominguez Perez,L−Ivanchuk,V/Capablanca Memorial, Havana 2010) 15...¤b6 16.¤e2 f6 Solving one problem, but weakening e6. 17.¥e3 ¤c4 18.¥xc4 ¦xc4 19.¤d4 £d7 20.¤b3 ¥a8 21.¤c5 £c8 22.¤d3² Bologan,V−Zvjaginsev,V/Belfort FRA 1999.

14.¤e2

The knight heads for d4.

14...¦ac8 15.¤d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-trk+0 9+lwq-vlpzpp0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+p+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-zP0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+P+0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...¦fd8 16.¥d3

If you're playing Black things look under control, but as usual there is no clear plan. White's Nd4 keeps an eye on central breaks.

16...£b6!?

13

Black's best try, but it doesn't change the situation. Black can't do anything active. 16...d5? 17.e5! is a typical trick 16...¤e8?! 17.g4 ¥f6 18.¥e3 d5 19.e5! ¥xe5 20.f4 ¥d6 21.g5‚ Bologan,V−Ye

Jiangchuan/Beijing CHN 2000.

17.¥e3 £c7 18.¥g5

18.g4!? ¤d7 19.g5 ¤e5 20.h5 d5 21.g6÷ Should favor White, but Black has some tricks.

18...£b6 19.¥e2 £c7 20.g4 e5!?

Black can't afford to wait any longer. This position is very important to the theory of this line.

21.¤f5 d5 22.¤xe7+ £xe7 23.exd5 ¦xd5 24.£e3?!=

Fedorowicz,J−Tyomkin,D/Guelf Pro Am 2002, Black can play 24...h6 when White must part with the bishop on g5.

24.£a5!?² is stronger, when the bishop pair gives White the better game.

14

Rauzer − with 7...Be7 8 Qd2 0-0 9 Nb3

[B63]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 ¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...£b6!? 8.0-0-0!? (A good alternative to 8.¤b3 ¥e7 (8...a6 9.0-0-0 is [B66], see

Kriventsov,S−Gulko,B/Seattle USA 2002) 9.f3 0-0 In this line Black's counterplay is woefully slow. 10.0-0-0 a6 11.¥e3

a) 11.h4 ¦d8 12.h5 Hariharan,V−Neelotpal,D/Chennai IND 2004 b) 11.g4 ¤a5 Shahade,J−Gulko,B/Philadelphia USA 2001 (11...£c7 Greenfeld,A−

Avrukh,B/Haifa ISR 2000)

11...£c7 12.g4 ¦d8 13.g5 ¤d7 14.h4 White's pawn storm is rolling, 14...b5 Svidler,P−Xu Jun/Shanghai CHN 2001, 15.£f2! to stop Black's ...¤c5.) 8...£xd4 (8...¥e7 9.f3 a6

10.g4?! £xd4 11.£xd4 ¤xd4 12.¦xd4 h5! This ruins white's pawn structure. 13.gxh5 ¤xh5

14.¥xe7 ¢xe7³ Nolsoe−Hoelzl Bled Ol 2002) 9.£xd4 ¤xd4 10.¦xd4 a6 11.f3 ¥d7 12.¤a4! Now white's N starts to cause problems. 12...¥c6 13.¤b6 ¦d8 14.¤c4 ¥e7 15.¤a5 ¦c8 16.¦b4!

15

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+k+-tr0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9p+lzppsn-+0 9sN-+-+-vL-0 9-tR-+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9+-mK-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...d5 17.¤xc6 bxc6 18.¦b7± Kasparov,G−Mchedlishvili,M/Bled SLO 2002 Black has

problems protecting his pawns. 7...h6!? 8.¥xf6 gxf6 Adams,M−Garcia Ilundain,D/Cala Galdana ESP 2001.

8.0-0-0 0-0 9.¤b3 £b6

9...a6 Draghici,G−Bayon Fernandez,R/Cala Galdana ESP 1999, 10.¥xf6 gxf6

10.f3

10.g4 a6 11.¦g1?! Aguilar,A−Krush,I/Buenos Aires ARG 2003.

10...¦d8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-wqnzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+NsN-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.¤b5

11.¢b1 £c7 (11...a6? Rd8 and a6 is a bad mixture 12.¥e3 £c7 13.£f2! ¤d7 14.h4 b5 15.¥g5!? (15.g4 Pushing up the guys looks good too.) 15...f6 16.¥e3 ¤ce5 17.g4 ¦b8 18.g5 ¤b6 19.¦g1 ¤ec4 20.¥d4± Dambacher,M−Van der Weide,K/Rotterdam NED

16

2000 White attack is first.) 12.f4 a6 13.¥e2 b5 14.¥f3 ¦b8 15.£e1 b4 16.¤e2 ¥b7 17.¤ed4 ¤xd4 18.¤xd4 ¦bc8 19.¦d2 h6 20.h4 (20.¥h4? ¤xe4!) 20...a5 21.e5 dxe5 22.¥xb7 £xb7 23.¥xf6 ¥xf6 24.fxe5 ¥e7∓ Kalashnikov,K−Ionov,S/Smolensk RUS 2000 White hasn't done much.

11...¦d7 12.£e1

12.¥e3 £d8 13.¤5d4 ¥f8 14.g4 e5 15.¤xc6 bxc6 16.g5 ¤e8 17.¤a5 ¦c7 18.h4 ¥e6 19.h5 £b8 20.£c3 £c8 21.g6 ¦b8 22.f4 ¤f6 23.gxh7+ ¢h8³ Maiorov,O−Fomichenko,E/Krasnodar RUS 1999 Black is very active− ...d5 ideas are on the agenda.

12...a6

12...£d8 13.g4 (13.h4 a5?! Black allows his q−side to be clamped. How can this be right? 14.a4 e5 15.g3 (15.c4!? Clamping all over the place!) 15...¤e8 16.¥e3 d5 17.¥h3 d4 18.¥d2 ¤b4 19.¢b1 £b6 20.¥xd7 ¥xd7 21.c3 ¥xb5 22.axb5 £xb5 23.£f1 £a4© Nunn,J−Pelletier,Y/Luebeck GER 1999) 13...b6?! Black develops while White attacks. Doesn't seem fair! (13...a6 14.¤5d4 £c7?! looks too slow (14...a5!?) 15.h4 b5 16.¤xc6 £xc6 17.¤d4 The knight keeps an eye on things. 17...£c7 18.¢b1 ¥b7 19.¥c1 ¦c8 20.¦h2± Jamrich,G−Dembo,Y/Budapest HUN 2001 White can attack for free. Black has nothing to do.) 14.h4 ¥b7 15.¤5d4 ¤xd4 16.¤xd4 ¦c8 17.¢b1 a6 18.¥c1 ¦dc7 19.g5 ¤d7 20.¦h2 d5 21.e5 ¥c5 22.h5± Anand,V−Tissir,M/Shenyang CHN 2000

12...a5?! This move leaves a gaping hole on b5 from which Black cannot recover. 13.a4! With this move White takes control of the queenside. Black has only the b4 point for attempted play. 13...¤b4 14.¢b1 e5 Black's lack of play is a common occurrence in this variation. 15.c3 ¤a6 16.¥c4 ¤c7 17.¥e3 £c6 18.£e2 d5?!± Shabalov,A−Fishbein,A/Seattle USA 2002, Black shouldn't open the position while so far behind in development. (18...¦d8!? 19.¤xc7 £xc7 20.g4² was a safer−looking try)

13.¤5d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9+p+rvlpzpp0 9pwqnzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+N+-+P+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9+-mKRwQL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17

13.¥e3 £d8 14.¤5d4 ¤xd4 15.¤xd4 £c7 16.g4 (16.¥f2!? intending to meet 16...d5 with 17 e5 is a try) 16...d5 17.g5 ¤h5 18.£h4 g6 19.¥h3 ¦d8 20.¤e2 ¥d7 21.exd5 exd5 22.¥xd7 ¦xd7 23.¤d4 ¥d6= Svidler,P−Iskusnyh,S/Smolensk RUS 2000.

13...£c7 14.h4

14.g4 ¤e5 15.¢b1 ¦d8 16.¥c1 ¤fd7 17.f4 (17.g5!?) 17...¤c4 18.g5 b5 19.h4 ¤c5 20.¥d3 (20.g6?! Golovchenko,G−Melnikova,Y/Serpukhov RUS 2004 should be met by 20...fxg6) 20...¥b7 21.g6 (21.h5!? White can afford to take his time. Black's play isn't very threatening.) 21...¥f6 22.gxf7+ £xf7 23.¤xc5 dxc5„ Nijboer,F−Van der Weide,K/Leeuwarden NED 2001.

14.¢b1 b5 15.¤xc6 £xc6 16.g4?! White doesn't pay attention and gives Black a chance. (16.¤d4! This looks great for White. Where does Black's queen retreat to? It's the usual routine. Where is Black's counterplay? If Black plays ...e5 then Nf5 is aggravation. 16...£c7 The Nd4 sits in the center making life difficult for black. 17.g4 d5 (17...e5 18.¤f5 ¥d8 19.¥c1± Is no fun either) 18.e5± is ugly) 16...e5!? The best and only chance. 17.¥c1 ¦c7 18.¥d3 ¥e6 19.h4 a5! Black is faster now, gaining time from the poorly placed knight on b3. 20.¤xa5? White misses Black's point. (20.g5 ¤d7 21.f4 deserves a look, White has to try something drastic) 20...¥xa2+! Now it's brutality on the queenside. 21.¢xa2 b4 22.£xb4 ¦ca7∓ Cheparinov,I−Kotronias,V/Linares ESP 2002.

14...¤e5

14...¤xd4 15.¤xd4 h6 16.¥d2 ¤h7 17.g4 ¥f6 18.¤e2 £c5 19.¢b1 ¦c7 20.¦c1 ¥d7 21.g5 Kudrin,S−Fishbein,A/US championship 2002.

15.¢b1 b5 16.g4 d5 17.¥xf6 gxf6

17...¥xf6 18.g5 ¥e7 19.f4ƒ

18.f4 ¤g6 19.f5 ¤f4 20.g5 e5 21.£g3 ¢h8 22.g6+−

Anand,V−Avrukh,B/Haifa ISR 2000, Black's game is an absolute shambles.

18

Rauzer 9 f4 − 9...Nxd4 & 9...h6 [B64−5]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 ¥e7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¤xd4

In this line Black strives for active piece play. 9...h6 10.¥h4 e5 [B64] 11.¤f5! ¥xf5 12.exf5 exf4 Shirov,A−Lugovoi,A/Keres Memorial,

Tallinn (rapid) 2011.

10.£xd4 £a5

19

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+-zppsn-+0 9wq-+-+-vL-0 9-+-wQPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.¥c4

The critical line, but White has two strong alternatives: 11.¢b1!? is Fed's favourite, 11...h6 12.h4 ¦d8 (12...e5 13.£d3 exf4 14.¥xf4 ¥e6 15.¥e2

¦ac8 16.¤d5 ¥xd5 17.exd5 ¦c5 18.¥f3 ¦fc8 19.¦he1 £a4 20.g3 ¥f8 21.¦e2 b5? (21...¦a5 22.£b3 with a minimal edge according to Peter Wells.) 22.¥e3 ¦5c7 23.¥d4 ¤d7 24.h5+− Kaidanov,G−Finegold,B/Salt Lake City USA 1999, £f5 and ¥d3 is on White's agenda.) 13.¥d3 e5 (13...¥d7 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 ¥c6 16.£f4 is the main alternative) 14.£e3 ¥g4 15.¦df1! and White won brilliantly, Shirov,A−Damljanovic,B/Canada de Calatrava ESP 2006.

11.e5 White gets some space, but the e5 pawn needs attention. This is a safe way to try for a win whilst keeping the draw in hand. 11...dxe5 12.£xe5 £xe5 13.fxe5 ¤d5 14.¥xe7 ¤xe7 15.¥d3 b6 16.¥e4 (16.¦he1 ¥b7 17.¥xh7+ ¢xh7 18.¦d7 ¥xg2 19.¦xe7 a5

20.¦g1 ¥c6 21.¦f1= Solak,D−Sherbakov,R/Belgrade YUG 2000.) 16...¦b8 17.¦he1 ¥b7 18.¦d7 (18.¤b5 ¥xe4 19.¦xe4 ¤c6 20.¦d6 ¦fc8 21.¦c4 and Black never quite equalised in Sadvakasov,D−Miroshnichenko,E/Dubai UAE 2006.) 18...¥xe4 19.¦xe4 ¤c6 20.¤b5! ¦fd8 21.¦d6! Black had to defend very accurately for a significant time in Motylev,A−Miroshnichenko,E/German Bundesliga 2008.

11...¥d7

11...¦d8!? is quite an unusual approach, but one which I predict may be about to soar in popularity, 12.e5 dxe5 13.£xe5 £b4 14.¥b5 h6 15.a3!? (15.¦xd8+ ¥xd8 16.¦d1 ¤d7

equalised in Caruana,F−Jobava,B/Reggio Emilia 2010.) 15...£a5 16.¥h4 a6 17.¥e2 £b6 18.¤a4!? Kasimdzhanov,R−Sanikidze,T/Turkish Team Championship 2010.

11...h6 12.¥h4 e5 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.£d3 ¥g4 15.¥xf6 ¥xf6 16.¦df1 ¦ac8 (16...¥h4!?

Bezgodov,A−Gulko,B/New Delhi IND 2000) 17.¢b1 Leko,P−Khalifman,A/New Delhi IND 2000.

12.e5

20

12.¦he1 ¥c6 13.¥b3 (13.f5 b5 14.¥b3 b4 15.¤e2 ¥a4! 16.¢b1 ¥xb3 17.axb3=) 13...¦fe8 14.e5 White is content with a draw. 14...dxe5 15.£xe5 £xe5 16.fxe5 ¤d7 17.¥xe7 ¦xe7 18.g3 ¦c8 19.¦e3 ¤f8 20.¤e2 ¦ec7 21.¤d4 ¥d7 22.c3= Polgar,J−Anand,V/Wijk aan Zee NED 2000.

12...dxe5 13.fxe5 ¥c6 14.¥d2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+l+psn-+0 9wq-+-zP-+-0 9-+LwQ-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPvL-+PzP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...¤d7

14...¥c5!? is risky, Vuckovic,B−Todorovic,G/Kopaonik SCG 2005.

15.¤d5 £d8 16.¤xe7+ £xe7 17.¦he1 ¦fd8

17...¤b6!? 18.¥f1! ¦fd8 19.£g4 ¦ac8!? Caruana,F−Baramidze,D/Mitropa Cup, Olbia 2008.

18.£g4 ¤f8

This knight is the only defender

19.¥d3!

21

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-snk+0 9zpp+-wqpzpp0 9-+l+p+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+-+-+Q+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzPPvL-+PzP0 9+-mKRtR-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19.¥f1!? Preserving the bishop pair 19...¤g6 20.¥b4 ¦xd1+ 21.¦xd1 £c7 22.£d4 ¥d5

23.¥d6? (23.¥c3! ¥xa2 24.b3 is the point) 23...£c6 24.¦d2 ¥xa2∓ Medvegy,N−Van der Weide,K/Groningen NED 1999.

19...¦xd3!?

I prefer this. For the exchange Black gets a safe king and good activity. 19...¦d5!? 20.¥b4 (20.¥e4!) 20...£d8 21.¥d6² Pinter,G−Dembo,Y/Budapest HUN 1999

Black looks passive.

20.cxd3 £d7?!

When Fed was analyzing the variation some time ago he felt that 20...£c5+!? was best. When White's bishop shows up on d6 it's very annoying.

21.¥b4 ¤g6 22.¥d6 f5 23.£e2²

Iordachescu,V−Campos Moreno,J/Linares ESP 2000.

22

Rauzer − 7...a6, ...Be7 & ...Nxd4 [B66]

Last updated: 09/11/10 by Richard Palliser

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¥g5 e6 7 £d2 a6 8 0-0-0 ¤xd4 9 £xd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-wQP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¥e7 10 f4

10 f3 b5 11 ¢b1 £a5?! This gets Black into trouble. (11...¥b7 or, 11...0-0 look ok) 12 e5 dxe5 13 £xe5 ¥b7 14 ¥d2 £b6 15 ¥e3 £a5 16 ¥d2 £b6 17 ¥e3 £a5 18 ¥c4! Black's queen on a5 is non−functional. 18...0-0 19 ¥xe6! Taking advantage of the offside queen, 19...¥b4 (19...fxe6 20 £xe6+ ¦f7 21 ¥b6 £b4 22 ¦d4+−) 20 ¥b3 ¦fe8 21 £f4 ¥xc3 22 bxc3 £xc3 23 ¥d4+− Naiditsch,A−Wells,P/Pulvermuele GER 2000.

10...b5 11 ¥xf6

Probably the most critical. 11 h4 ¥b7 12 ¦h3!? Murey is a very creative player, but I don't have much faith in this

idea. 12...£c7 13 ¥xf6 gxf6 14 a4 b4! This nice resource puts the ¦h3 idea into the dumpster. (14...bxa4 15 £xa4+ ¥c6?! (15...£c6 looks safer) 16 £c4 £b6 17 f5 ¥d7 18 £a2! Preparing ¥c4 18...¥f8 19 ¢b1 ¥h6 20 fxe6 fxe6 21 ¥b5!+− Murey,J−Malakhov,V/Cappelle La Grande FRA 2000) 15 ¤a2 a5 16 ¢b1 ¦c8 17 ¥b5+ ¢f8 18 £d3 d5 19 exd5 ¥xd5 20 ¤c1 f5∓ Baklan,V−Svidler,P/Brussels BEL 2000, Black is very active.

23

11 ¥e2 ¥b7 12 ¥f3 0-0!? Black sacrifices his d−pawn to get his king to safety, (although, as we've seen of late, Kacheishvili's 12...¦c8 is also quite viable.) 13 ¥xf6!? (13 e5!?

Shirov,A−Mamedyarov,S/German Bundesliga 2009) 13...¥xf6 14 £xd6 ¥xc3! (14...£a5!? 15 e5 ¥xf3 16 gxf3 ¦ad8 17 £c5 ¦c8 18 £e3 b4 19 exf6 bxc3 20 fxg7! (20 ¢b1 Landa,K−Malakhov,V/Novokuznetsk 2008) 20...cxb2+ 21 ¢b1 with a slight edge, Yemelin,V−Dreev,A/Moscow Open 2009.) 15 £xd8 returning the pawn, (15

bxc3 £a5 16 ¢b2 ¦ac8 17 £b4 £xb4+ 18 cxb4 ¦c4 is balanced) 15...¥xb2+ 16 ¢xb2 ¦fxd8 17 ¦d3 ¢f8 18 ¦hd1 ¢e7 should be drawn, Grandelius,N−Huschenbeth,N/Pardubice 2009.

11...gxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+-+-vlp+p0 9p+-zppzp-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-wQPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 ¥e2

12 ¢b1 £c7 13 £e3!? This treatment looks like a good try. 13...¥b7 (13...¥d7!? Keeping an eye on the e6 point is advisable.) 14 ¥d3 £c5 15 £h3 ¥c6 16 £h6 0-0-0 17 ¦he1 ¦dg8 18 g3 ¢b7 19 f5 Black's rook placement is strange and white is breaking down the f7−e6 complex. 19...¥d8 20 ¤e2² Adams,M−Stefansson,H/Reykjavic ISL 2003.

12 g3!? I like White's approach here. I'm not saying White did something earth moving, but it's better than going into unclear weird theory. 12...£c7 13 f5 £c5 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 £d2 £e5 16 ¥h3 ¥b7 17 ¦he1 ¦c8 18 ¢b1 ¦c4 19 ¦e3 ¢f7 20 ¥f1 ¦c7 21 ¥d3 ¦hc8 22 ¤e2 ¥f8 23 ¤f4² Govedarica,R−Vuckovic,B/Lazarevac YUG 1999

12 e5!? Another theoretical move that Black shrugs off. 12...d5 13 ¥e2 (13 ¢b1 ¥b7 14 f5!?

This move has more bark than bite. 14...fxe5 15 £xe5 ¥f6 16 £g3 £e7 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 ¥e2

h5! An important move that prevents ¥g4 and ¦he1. 19 ¥f3 0-0-0 20 h4 b4 21 ¤e2 e5 22

¤c1 ¢b8 23 ¤b3 £c7= Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Wijk aan Zee NED 2000.) 13...¥b7!? (13...£c7? 14 ¤xd5! Ganguly,S−Dreev,A/Spanish Team Championship 2009, 13...¥d7!)

14 ¥h5 0-0 15 ¦d3 b4 16 ¤e2 ¦c8 17 exf6 ¥xf6 18 £xb4 £c7 19 £d2 a5 20 ¤d4 ¥a6 21 ¦g3+ ¢h8 22 c3 e5 23 fxe5 £xe5= Ashley,M−Yermolinsky,A/Connecticut USA 2000, Black's king is safer, but it's no big deal.

12 ¥d3 is a calm approach, 12...£c7 13 £e3 ¥d7 14 ¢b1 £c5!? Gashimov,V−Mamedyarov,S/FIDE Grand Prix, Elista 2008.

24

12 f5!? on the current evidence this is looking quite critical, 12...£c7 13 ¢b1 £c5 14 £d2 Jakovenko,D−Kononenko,D/European Club Cup, Plovdiv 2010.

12...£c7

12...¦b8!? 13 ¥h5?! b4 14 ¤e2 £a5 forking a2 and h5, Jobava,B−Dreev,A/Barcelona 2008.

13 f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+-wq-vlp+p0 9p+-zppzp-+0 9+p+-+P+-0 9-+-wQP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+L+PzP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¥f3!? ¥b7 (13...¦b8!? Hebden,M−Wells,P/Jack Speigel Memorial, Southend 2009) 14 f5

¦c8 Sutovsky,E−Predojevic,B/Subotica 2008.

13...£c5

13...h5? Defending against ¥h5, but weakening the g6 point. 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 ¥f3 ¥b7 16 ¢b1 £c5 17 £d3 0-0-0 18 ¤e2! Going after e6 hoping to create light square weaknesses. 18...£e5 19 ¤d4 ¢d7 20 ¦he1 ¦c8 21 g3 ¦c4 22 ¥g2 ¢c7 23 ¥h3± Black's clearly on the defensive, Dolmatov,S−Poluliakhov,A/Russia (ch) 1998.

14 £xc5 dxc5 15 ¦hf1

15 fxe6 fxe6 16 ¥h5+ This was once big theory, but White never achieved much. 16...¢f8 17 e5 This is the mega−theory, but Black looks to be ok. 17...f5 18 g4 ¦a7 19 ¦hg1 ¦g8 20 gxf5 ¦xg1 21 ¦xg1 exf5 22 ¤d5 ¥h4 23 ¤f6 ¦g7 24 ¦d1 ¢e7∓ White is overextended, Sarkar,J−Yermolinsky,A/Philadelphia USA 1999.

15...¦a7 16 a4 b4 17 ¤b1 ¦d7 18 ¦xd7 ¢xd7 19 ¤d2 h5 20 ¤c4 ¢c7 21 b3 exf5 22 exf5 ¥d6=

White didn't get anything out of the opening, Topalov,V−Kramnik,V/Monaco MNC 2000.

25

Rauzer − 8...h6 9 Nxc6 bc6 10 Bf4 [B66]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.¤xc6

9.¥xf6 gives Black the 2 bishops for nothing, 9...£xf6 Meulblok,W−Bagaturov,G/Vlissingen NED 1999.

9...bxc6 10.¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9p+pzppsn-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is very fashionable at the moment, White strengthens Black's centre, but gains play on

the dark squares and a lead in development.

10...d5 11.£e3 £a5

26

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9p+p+psn-zp0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+-sN-wQ-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

In 'Experts vs the Sicilian' Peter Wells thinks that this is Black's best try. Alternatives: 11...¥b4 12.a3 ¥xc3!? (12...¥a5 13.¥e2 0-0 14.e5 ¥xc3?! Handing White the bishop pair.

(14...¤d7!?) 15.£xc3 ¤e4 16.£e3 f6 17.f3 fxe5 18.¥xe5 £g5 19.£xg5 ¤xg5 20.¦he1 ¥d7 21.¥d3² Degraeve,J−Apicella,M/Bescanon FRA 1999) 13.£xc3 ¤xe4 14.£xg7 £f6 Black swaps the bishop−pair for a potentially strong centre, 15.£xf6 ¤xf6 16.¥e5 ¢e7 and now Wells recommends 17.g4 e.g. (but 17.¥d4 ¦g8 18.f3 ¤d7

19.g4 also looks promising: White has the bishop pair) 17...¦g8 18.f3 a5! Baklan,V−Cvek,R/Austrian Bundesliga 2008.

11...¥e7 12.¥e2 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+-+-vlpzp-0 9p+p+psn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+-sN-wQ-+-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(12.h4!? I don't know if this is necessary. Perhaps White should wait on h4. 12...£a5

13.¥e2 £c5 14.£g3 d4 15.¤a4 £b4 16.b3 ¥d7 17.¥f3 a5 18.¥d2 £b7 19.¢b1 g6 20.¥f4 (20.£e5!? looks interesting) 20...c5 21.¥e5 ¥xa4 22.¥xf6 ¥xf6 23.e5 ¥c6 24.exf6 a4 25.£d6 ¦c8³ Groszpeter,A−Wang Rui/Gyula HUN 2000, strangely enough Black's king is the safer of the two.) 12...0-0 13.h4! (13.£g3 ¢h8 14.¥c7 £d7 15.¥e5 £b7 16.exd5 (16.£h3 White has g4−g5 ideas. Black might have to play ...¤g8 at some point.) 16...cxd5 17.¦d4 ¤e8 18.¥d3 ¥d7 19.¦e1 ¥f6 20.¦g4 ¥xe5 21.¦xe5= Nisipeanu,L−Ivanchuk,V/Las Vegas USA 1999 White's heavy pieces aren't attacking.) 13...¤d7 14.£g3 ¢h8 15.¥c7! A frequent theme in this variation is queen misplacement, Vachier Lagrave−Kempinski/Bundesliga 2010.

27

12.¥e2 dxe4

This is a critical pawn grab. 12...¥b4 13.¥e5 both attacking and defending (c3), the power of this piece is the key to this

variation, 13...¥e7!? 14.f4 0-0 15.£g3 ¤e8 Ismagambetov,A−Cvek,R/Pardubice CZE 2005, when 16.exd5 cxd5 17.f5! is best.

13.£g3!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9p+p+psn-zp0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+-+pvL-+0 9+-sN-+-wQ-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White threatens ¥c7 and keeps an eye on g7. 13.¤xe4?! ¤d5 14.¦xd5 cxd5 15.¤d6+ ¥xd6 16.¥xd6÷ 13.¥c4!? This is a highly original idea. White is fighting against a possible closure of the

center by ¤d5. 13...£f5! 14.g4 (14.f3!? suggested by Gofstein) 14...¤xg4 15.£b6 £xf4+ 16.¢b1 ¥d7 17.¦xd7 ¢xd7 18.¦d1+ ¢e7 19.£xc6= Nataf,I−Gershon,A/Mermaid Beach Club 1999 − its perpetual check.

13...¤d5 14.¤xd5! cxd5 15.¢b1

See Carlsson,P−Ernst,T/Goeteborg SWE 2005.

28

Rauzer − 8...h6 9 Be3 [B66]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.¥e3 ¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+p+-vlpzp-0 9p+nzppsn-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Alternatives: 9...¥d7 10.f3 b5 a) 10...¦c8 11.g4 (11.¤xc6! When black has to capture with a piece then white should

exchange. 11...bxc6 12.¥xa6 Black has no compensation as white's queenside is too solid.) 11...¤e5 After this black gets good chances. 12.¥d3 b5 13.¦he1 ¥e7 14.¢b1 £c7 15.h4 £b7 16.g5 hxg5 17.hxg5 ¤h5 18.f4 ¤c4 19.¥xc4 ¦xc4² Kazhgaleyev,M−Efimov,I, Clermont−Ferrand FRA 2003 White's coordination gives a slight pull.

b) 10...h5?! White's pawn isn't on h4 yet so playing for g4 is possible. 11.¢b1 ¥e7 12.¥d3 £a5 13.h3! h4 14.f4 ¦c8 15.£f2 £c7 16.¦he1 b5 17.¤f3 b4 18.¤a4 d5 19.exd5 ¤xd5 20.¤b6 ¤xb6 21.¥xb6 £b7 22.¥e4 f5 23.¤e5!+− Svidler,P−Landenbergue,C/Internet ICC 2000.

c) 10...£c7 11.¢b1 b5 12.¥d3 (12.¤xc6! is best) 12...¥e7 13.g4 Korneev,O−Leminski,H/Barcelona ESP 2004

11.¤xc6! (11.¢b1 ¤e5 (11...¤xd4 12.¥xd4 b4 13.¤e2 e5 Black should only play this only when he can get the freeing ...d5 in. 14.¥e3 a5 15.¤c1 £c7 16.g4 ¥e7 17.h4 ¦b8 18.¥h3 a4

19.g5 hxg5 20.¥xd7+ £xd7 21.hxg5 ¤h5 22.¤d3± Spraggett,K−Odachowski,A/Montreal CAN 2001 Black's king has safety issues.) 12.¥d3 £c7 13.g4 (13.¦he1 ¦b8 14.f4! also has much to recommend it, Vallejo Pons,F−Caruana,F/Wijk aan Zee 2009) 13...b4 14.¤ce2 ¦b8 (14...d5 15.¥f4 ¥d6 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¥xe5 ¥xe5 18.¥e4 ¦b8 19.¥xd5 exd5 20.f4

29

¥xd4 21.¤xd4² Wang Rui−Ni Hua/Shenyang CHN 1999 White has a nice positional pull.) 15.c4 ¥c8 16.b3 ¤fd7 17.¤g3 ¥b7 18.¥c2 ¤c5 I like White's position. It seems to me that Black will be going on a mass retreat shortly. 19.£e2 ¥e7 20.h4 g6 21.f4± Dworakowska,J−Mainka,R/Koszalin POL 1999 White has an overwhelming position.) 11...¥xc6 12.¤e2!? Heading to d4 from where the knight has a panoramic view.

a) 12.g4!? I prefer putting the knight on d4 first, but this isn't bad. 12...¦c8 13.¥d3 Sometimes the bishop gets bothered by Nd7 to e5 or c5. (13.¤e2!? ¤xe4?! This doesn't work to white should play 13 Ne2. 14.fxe4 ¥xe4 15.¤g3 ¦xc2+ 16.£xc2 ¥xc2

17.¢xc2 White's pieces will be too much for black to cope with.) 13...d5!? 14.e5 d4!? (14...¤d7?! 15.¥d4²) 15.¥xd4 £xd4 16.exf6 gxf6 17.¤e4 ¥e7 18.¢b1 ¢f8= Bar−Rohit 41st World Junior Goa 2002 Black can drum up play on the dark squares.

b) 12.¢b1 ¥e7 (12...¤d7 13.¤e2 d5? with zero development and his king still in the middle this is asking for trouble, Luther,T−Abergel,T/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2003) 13.¤e2! White does the typical knight redeployment with a good game, Johannessen,L−Brynell,S/Malmo SWE 2003.

12...£c7 (12...e5 Preventing white's knight from hopping into the strong central d4 point, but leaving d5 vulnerable. 13.¤c3! This natural move clamps down on the d5 push. 13...¥e7 14.¢b1 ¦b8 15.g4 b4 16.¤d5 ¤xd5 17.exd5 ¥b5 18.h4 ¥xf1 19.¦dxf1± Zezulkin,J−Jaworski,M/CZE 2002 White threatens g5 followed by f4 when black's king has no safe house anywhere on the board., 12...d5 This looks like black's best try as far as I can tell. 13.e5 ¤d7 14.f4 g6 15.¤d4 £c7 16.h4 h5 This looks like some kind of French defense. At least the position is locked. White must have an edge, but black is alive.) 13.¢b1 (13.¤d4 ¥b7 14.¥d3 Nunn,J−Chandler,M/Solingen GER 2001) 13...¥b7 (13...d5 14.e5 ¤d7 15.f4 b4 16.¤d4 ¦b8?! (16...g6!? At least trying to slow White down.) 17.f5 ¤c5 18.¥d3 ¥d7 19.¦hf1 ¤a4 20.fxe6 ¥xe6 21.£f2² Adams,M−Bellin,R/Kilkenny IRL 1999 White's attack is too far along, while Black is playing for cheapos.) 14.h4 ¦c8 15.¦h3 h5!? (15...d5 16.e5 ¤d7 17.f4 h5 is another try) 16.¤d4 ¤d7 17.¥g5! Creating development problems. 17...g6 18.¦h1 d5 19.exd5 ¥xd5 20.¥f4 £b7 21.¤b3 ¥g7 22.¥d6± Kasparov,G−Kramnik,V/Frankfurt GER 1999 Black's king is stuck in the middle.

9...¤a5!? 10.¤b3 (10.f4!? looks more challenging.) 10...¤xb3+ 11.cxb3 ¥e7 12.f3 b5 13.¢b1 ¥b7 14.h4 d5! 15.£f2 £b8 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¥d4 0-0 18.¥d3 ¦d8 19.¢a1 e5 20.¤xd5 ¦xd5= Vasquez,R−Dlugy,M/Internet ICC 2000 After Black achieved d5 he was fine.

9...£c7 10.f3 ¦b8 11.¢b1 ¥e7 12.g4 ¤e5 13.h4 b5 (13...¤fd7 14.£g2 b5 15.f4 b4 16.¤a4 ¤c6

17.¤b3 White's N's are clogging Black's counterplay. 17...¥b7 18.g5 hxg5 19.hxg5 ¦xh1

20.£xh1 g6 21.¥d3± Anand,V−Bacrot,E/ Bastia FRA 2001, Black's king lacks a safe house.) 14.¥d3! I prefer this over 14Qg2 14...b4 15.¤ce2 ¤fd7 16.g5 h5 17.f4 ¤xd3 18.cxd3 g6 19.f5 e5 20.¤b3 ¤c5 21.¤g3 ¤xb3 22.axb3 a5 23.d4± Stefansson,H−Thorfinnsson,B/Reykjavik ISL 1999 White has a dangerous initiative

9...¤xd4 10.¥xd4 b5 11.£e3 (11.¥d3 ¥b7 (11...£a5 12.¢b1 b4 13.¤e2 e5 14.¥e3 ¥e6 15.¤c1

d5!? looks alright) 12.f3 ¥e7 13.¢b1 0-0?! Black is better off delaying this. 14.h4 b4 15.¤e2 e5 16.¥e3 d5 17.exd5 ¥xd5 18.¤g3 £a5 19.b3 ¦fc8 20.¥xh6!± Furhoff,J−Enquist,G/Skelleftea SWE 1999 Black's position fell apart fast.) 11...¥d7 12.e5 dxe5 13.£xe5 ¥e7?! This lets White develop a nice initiative. (13...£b8 14.£xb8+ ¦xb8

30

15.¥xf6 gxf6 16.¤e4 ¥c6 17.¤xf6+ ¢e7 18.¤h5 ¦g8 19.f3 ¦g5 20.¤f4 h5 21.h4 ¦e5 22.¤d3

¥h6+ 23.¢b1 gave Black good play in Christiansen−Judasin New York Open 1990)

14.£g3 b4 15.¥xf6 ¥xf6 16.¤e4 £b8 17.¤xf6+ gxf6 18.£g7 £f4+ 19.¢b1 ¦f8 20.¥xa6!+− Hermansson,E−Enquist,G/Skelleftea SWE 1999.

10.f3

Solidly defending e4, otherwise: 10.f4 ¤xd4 (10...¥d7 11.¢b1 (11.¥d3 b5 12.h3 ¤xd4 13.¥xd4 ¥c6 (13...b4 14.¤e2 e5

15.¥e3 £a5 16.¢b1 ¥e6?! (16...0-0 17.g4 exf4 18.¥xf4 ¥e6 19.b3 d5 20.e5 ¤e4 21.¥xe4 dxe4

22.¤d4 ¥c5 23.£e2 ¥xd4 24.¦xd4 £c5 25.£xe4 a5 26.¥e3 £c3 27.¦d3 £c7 28.¦d6 ¦fc8

followed by a4 gives Black good chances.) 17.b3 d5 18.f5 dxe4 19.fxe6 exd3 20.exf7+ ¢xf7 21.£xd3 £b5 22.£xb5 axb5 23.¥c1± Furhoff,J−Fors,T/Skelleftea SWE 1999 Black's pawns are very weak.) 14.¢b1 b4 (14...£c7?! Black wants to get e5 in, but White comes first. 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 ¤d7 17.£e3 ¦c8 18.¤e2 heading to h5 with a strong attack) 15.¤e2 a5 (15...¤xe4? 16.¥xe4 ¥xe4 17.¤g3±) 16.¤g3 h5!? Fighting against the Nh5 idea. 17.£e2 h4 18.¥xf6 gxf6 19.¤h5 £b6 20.f5 £c5 21.e5! This important novelty casts a shadow on 13...Bc6 21...£xe5 22.£g4 0-0-0 23.¦he1 £c5 24.£g7!± Magomedov,M−Isaev,J/Dushanbe 1998 Black's small center is collapsing.) 11...b5 12.¥d3 0-0 (12...£c7 13.h3 ¤xd4 14.¥xd4 b4 (14...¥c6 15.¦de1 b4 16.¤d1 e5 17.¥f2 £b7 18.£e3 a5?! (18...¤d7 is a better try) 19.¦hg1 a4 20.g4 b3?! (20...¤d7 This still looks ok.) 21.cxb3 a3 22.h4± Rigo,Z−Lancz,O/Nove Zamky SVK 1999) 15.¤e2 e5!? This gives Black good play. 16.¥e3 £b7 17.g4 ¥c6 18.¤g3 0-0 19.fxe5 dxe5 20.¥xh6 ¤xe4 21.¥xe4 ¥xe4 22.¦he1 ¥g6³ Nouro,M−Kovalevskaya,E/St Petersburg RUS 1999 This takes care of Black's k−side.) 13.¤xc6?! This allows Black pressure on e4. 13...¥xc6 14.e5 dxe5 (14...¤d5!?)

15.fxe5 ¤d5 (15...¤d7 looks good too) 16.¤xd5 £xd5 17.¥xh6 £xe5 18.¦de1 £d5 19.¦hf1 f5 20.¥f4 ¥f6 21.£e2 ¦ae8= Zezulkin,J−Lerner,K/Koszalin POL 1999) 11.¥xd4 This game was a good test. The players blasted down the main line. 11...b5 12.£e3 £c7 13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 ¤d7 15.¤e4 ¥b7 16.¤d6+ £xd6 17.exd6 ¥g5 18.£xg5 hxg5 19.¥xg7 ¦h7? Theory doesn't even consider this. (19...¦h4!? 20.¥d4

¦c8 21.¥f2 ¦h6 22.h4 e5 23.¦h3 g4 24.¦e3 ¢f8 25.¥g3 f5 26.¥xe5 ¥e4 27.¦xe4! fxe4 28.¥g3

with a winning position in Wahls−Lagunov Germany 1996, 22...g4 is a suggested improvement. To me Black looks very shaky.) 20.¥c3 f5 21.h3 ¤c5 22.¦g1 ¤e4 23.¥e5+− Timoshenko,G−Tyomkin,D/Budapest HUN 1999

10.h3 ¤xd4 11.¥xd4 b5 12.¥xf6?! Mixing h3 with Bxf6 looks terrible. 12...gxf6 13.¥d3 ¥b7 14.f4 £a5 15.¢b1 b4 16.¤e2 £c5 17.f5 e5 18.¤c1 a5 19.£e2 a4 20.¥b5+ ¢f8 21.¥c4 ¦c8 22.b3 a3³ Joecks,C−Lerner,K/Hamburg GER 1999 Black has all the activity.

10...¤xd4

This is best at this point 10...¥d7 This is a bit slow, very often this bishop winds up on e6, so this amounts to a

waste of time. 11.g4 £c7 (11...b5 12.h4 ¦c8 13.¥d3!? Mongontuul,B−Hou Yifan/FIDE Women's World Ch., Nalchik 2008) 12.h4 ¤xd4 13.¥xd4 b5 14.¥h3! b4 15.¤e2

31

¦c8 16.¢b1 e5 17.¥e3± Stefansson,H−Ramos Aguilar,J/Las Palmas ESP 1999 − White's game plays itself.

11.£xd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+p+-vlpzp-0 9p+-zppsn-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-wQP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.¥xd4 b5 a) 11...£a5 12.¢b1 Normal looking, but slow. (12.£f2!?) 12...e5 13.¥e3 ¥e6 14.g4

b5 15.¤d5 £xd2 16.¤xf6+ gxf6! This structure allows Black to undermined White's k−side. 17.¦xd2 h5 18.¦g1 ¢d7 19.g5 fxg5 20.¥xg5 ¦ag8 21.¥e3 ¦xg1 22.¥xg1 ¥g5 23.¦d1 ¢c6∓ Monokroussos,D−Dlugy,M/Internet ICC 2000

b) 11...e5?! As a rule when White's knight is covering d5 this is incorrect. 12.¥e3 £a5 (12...¥e6 13.¢b1 ¦c8 14.h4 Shahade,G−Perelshteyn,E/New York USA 2001)

13.£f2 £c7 14.g4 b5 15.¢b1 ¥b7 16.h4 ¥c6 17.¤d5 £b7 18.¤xe7 £xe7 19.¥h3!+− Shabalov,A−Burnett,R/Philadelphia USA 2000 White's attack is out of control.

12.¢b1 ¦b8 (12...£a5?! 13.£e3! showing why Qa5 is inaccurate 13...¦b8 14.e5 dxe5 15.£xe5 ¦b7

16.¤e4 ¦d7 17.¥d3 ¦d5 18.£g3 ¤h5 19.£b8 £d8 20.¥b6 £d7 21.¤c3± De la Villa Garcia,J−Andrade,L/Mondariz Balneario ESP 1999 Black's pieces are scattered all over the place.) 13.¥a7 ¦b7 14.¥e3 b4 (14...£c7 15.g4 Bologan,V−Obodchuk,A/Poikovsky RUS 2003) 15.¤e2 e5 16.¤c1 ¦b8 17.¥c4! If Black can't get in d5 it's big trouble. Black's q−side demonstration doesn't look like much. 17...a5 18.g4 ¥e6 19.¥xe6 fxe6 20.h4 ¤d7 21.f4 £c7 22.g5 hxg5 23.hxg5± Blehm,P−Tyomkin,D/Paget Parish BER 2001.

11...b5

11...e5 12.£d3 ¥e6 13.¢b1 b5 14.h4 ¦c8 15.g4 £a5 16.¤d5 ¤xd5 17.exd5 ¥d7 18.¦h2 Now we see the problem. Black has zero counterplay. 18...£d8 19.f4 ¥xg4 20.¥e2 ¥xe2 21.¦xe2 e4 22.£xe4± Iordachescu,V−Tomescu,V/Porto San Giorgio ITA 1999.

12.¢b1 ¥b7!?

32

12...£a5 13.h4 (13.e5 dxe5 14.£xe5 Black's queen is out of play, but White is unable to take advantage, Ibarra Jerez,J−Daskevics,V/Halkidiki GRE 2003.) 13...b4 14.¤e2 e5 15.£d3 ¥e6 With the typical Rauzer play.

13.h4 ¦c8 14.¥e2

14.£d2 d5 Blehm,P−Perelshteyn,E/Bermuda BER 2002.

14...d5 15.exd5 ¤xd5 16.¤xd5 ¥xd5 17.£xg7 ¥f6 18.£g4 ¥xa2+!

A nice way to force a draw.

19.¢xa2 £a5+ 20.¢b1 ¥xb2 21.¢xb2 £c3+ 22.¢a2 £xc2+= 23.¢a1 £c3+ 24.¢a2 £c2+

Kasparov,G−Kramnik,V/Frankfurt GER 1999.

33

Rauzer − 8...h6 9 Bf4 [B66]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9p+nzppsn-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNPvL-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¥d7 10.¤xc6 ¥xc6 11.f3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9p+lzppsn-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Otherwise: 11.£e1 This was popular in the mid to early eighties. GM's Benjamin, Wilder and I had a

lot of success vs GM Dlugy. Presently it isn't considered dangerous. 11...¥e7 (11...£a5 I've always thought this line to favor White, but here Black gets good play.

34

12.¥c4 ¥e7 13.¥b3 ¦d8 The main problem with Black's game is that castling must be delayed or the queen must retreat. All this due to the ¤d5 trick. 14.f3 b5 15.¥d2 (15.a3!? a2 can be a good retreat square) 15...b4 16.¤e2 d5 17.e5 ¤d7 Now White's b3−bishop becomes a real concern. 18.£g3 £c7 19.¤d4 ¢f8 I believe this is forced. (19...¥b7? 20.f4 g6 21.¤xe6 fxe6 22.£xg6+ ¢f8 23.f5+−) 20.f4 ¥c5 Getting rid of the d4−knight one way or another is a good idea. 21.¤xc6 £xc6∓ Galliamova,A−Kosteniuk,A/Moscow RUS 2001.) 12.h4 (12.e5 ¤h5 13.¥e3 £c7 is the old theory, but is nothing for White, see Azarov,S−Zhigalko,A/Minsk BLR 2005, 12.f3 with English Attack−like play, Alekseev,E−Ivanchuk,V/FIDE Grand−Prix, Nalchik 2009)

12...£a5?! (12...£c7!? 13.e5 d5 is one alternative (13...dxe5 14.¥xe5 £a5 is another) ) 13.f3 ¦d8 14.¥c4 b5 15.¥b3 £c7 The ¤d5 trick is on again so the queen must drop back. 16.g4 a5 17.a3 ¤d7 18.£e3 preventing ...¤c5, 18...¦b8 19.g5 a4 20.¥a2 b4 21.axb4 ¦xb4 22.g6 £b8 23.gxf7+ ¢xf7 24.¦hg1± Jakubowski,K−Werle,J/Litohoto GRE 1999.

11...d5

11...£a5 12.¢b1?! (12.¥c4! is best) 12...¦d8 13.¥d3 ¥e7 14.¦he1 ¤d7 15.¥f1 ¤e5 16.£f2 0-0 17.¥e3 ¤d7 18.g4 ¥f6 19.¥d4 ¥xd4 20.¦xd4 £c5 21.¦ed1² Stocek,J−Chernyshov,K/Presov SVK 1999 White can pile on d6.

12.£e1 ¥b4 13.a3 ¥a5 14.¥d2

This safe move shouldn't cause Black too much grief. 14.exd5 ¤xd5 15.b4 ¤xf4 16.¦xd8+ ¥xd8 17.h4 (17.¤e2 White abandoned this line in the

early 90's. The Black pieces work well while the White queen lack's points of attack. 17...¤xe2+ 18.¥xe2 0-0 19.¥d3 ¥f6 20.£e2 ¦fc8 21.¢b1 b5 22.¥e4 a5!∓ Minasian,A−Sargissian,G/Yerevan ARM 1999 Black has gotten a nice initiative.) 17...0-0 18.£e3 (18.¦h2 b5? This loosens the pawn structure for no good reason. (18...¥e7 with a5 ideas) 19.£e3 ¥f6 20.£xf4 ¥xc3 21.£e3 ¥a1 22.g4+− Ninov,N−Zontakh,A/Lazarevac YUG 1999) 18...¤d5 American GM Max Dlugy has been one of the leaders in the 8...h6 variation since the early eighties. 19.¤xd5 ¥xd5 20.¥d3 a5 21.b5 ¥e7 22.c4 ¦ac8 23.£e2 b6∓ Sadvakasov,D−Dlugy,M/Liepaja LAT 2001 White's king is looking a bit chilly.

14.b4 ¥b6 15.exd5 ¥xd5 16.¥e5 0-0 17.£h4 ¤d7?! Theory considers this inferior. (17...¥e3+ 18.¢b2 ¥g5 19.£d4 ¥c6 20.£xd8 ¦fxd8 21.¥d3 and either 21...¤d7 or

(21...¤d5 are fine for Black) ) 18.£xd8 ¥xd8 19.¥d6 ¥c6 20.¥xf8 ¢xf8± Blalock,R−Santos,L/Algarve POR 1999.

14...d4

35

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9p+l+psn-zp0 9vl-+-+-+-0 9-+-zpP+-+0 9zP-sN-+P+-0 9-zPPvL-+PzP0 9+-mKRwQL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.e5 ¤d7 16.¤e2 ¥xd2+ 17.¦xd2 ¤xe5 18.¤xd4 £f6 19.¤xc6 ¤xc6 20.¥d3 0-0 21.£e4 ¦fd8=

Grischuk,A−Klimov,S/St Petersburg RUS 1999 Black's position is going to be a tough nut to crack. His king is safe and the pawn structure compact. The 3 to 2 majority with the bishop vs knight is a long way off.

36

Rauzer with 9 f4 [B67]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 a6 8.0-0-0 ¥d7 9.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+p+l+pzpp0 9p+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...b5

One of the most popular and reliable variations in the Rauzer. Alternatively, 9...h6!? Black intends to play a further ...g5 to gain control of the e5−square.

10.¥h4 (10.¥xf6 £xf6 11.¤f3 £d8 Rahal,M−Vidarte Morales,A/Paretana ESP 1999)

10...g5 11.fxg5 ¤g4 12.¥e2 (12.¤xc6!? the old main line which should perhaps once again become the new one. 12...¥xc6 13.¥e2 ¤e5 14.g3! ¤g6 15.¦hf1! Carlsson,P−Huerga Leache,M/Malaga 2008.) 12...¤ge5 13.¤f3 (13.¥g3?! hxg5 Hebert,J−Arnett,D/New York USA 2000) 13...¥e7 14.¦hg1! Ziatdinov's strong move, see Kogan,A−Mamedov,N/Sort ESP 2006.

10.¥xf6

White doubles the black pawns at the cost of the bishop pair. Others: 10.¤xc6 ¥xc6 11.£e3 a) 11.¥d3 b4 (11...¥e7 12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 ¤d7 14.¥xe7 £xe7 15.¥e4 ¥xe4 16.¤xe4 ¤xe5

17.£c3 f6 18.¤d6+ ¢f8 19.¦d4 g6 20.¤c8 £f7 21.¤d6 £e7 22.¤c8 £f7 23.¦d8+ ¢g7

24.¦hd1³ Sutovsky,E−Blehm,P/Ohrid MKD 2001, with proper play Black will be

37

able to consolidate his pawn plus.) 12.¤e2 £b6 13.¥xf6 gxf6 14.¢b1 h5 (14...a5 15.¤g3 (15.f5 e5 16.g4 ¦g8 17.h3 a4 18.¤g3 £c5 19.£e2 ¥h6 20.¦he1 ¢e7 21.¥c4²

Shetty,R−Murugan,K/Calcutta IND 2000.) 15...h5 16.£e2 £c5 (16...a4!?) 17.f5 h4 18.¤h5 £e5 19.¦hf1 a4 20.¤xf6+!! £xf6 21.¥b5 ¦c8 22.¥xc6+ ¦xc6 23.£b5± Fedorchuk,S−Tukmakov,V/Lausanne SUI 2000.) 15.f5 (15.¦hf1 a5 16.c4 This looks loosening. 16...£c5 17.¦f3 ¦g8 18.g3 ¦d8 19.¦c1 ¥g7 20.¦ff1 a4 21.f5 e5 22.¤g1 h4 23.g4 a3³

Enders,P−Baklan,V/Tegernsee GER 1999., 15.¦he1 ¦c8 16.¤c1 a5 17.f5 ¥h6 18.£e2

¥xc1 19.¦xc1 e5 20.c3 ¢e7 21.cxb4 axb4 22.¥c4 ¦c7 23.¦c2 ¥b7 24.¦ec1 £d4 25.¥d3³

Solleveld,M−Atalik,S/Groningen NED 1999, e4 is a nice target and Black's king is very cozy.) 15...¥h6 16.£e1 e5 17.¥c4 ¢e7 18.b3 ¦ag8 19.¤g3 h4 20.¤h5 ¥g5 21.g4 ¦c8 22.£e2 ¥b5 23.¥xb5 axb5³ Morovic Fernandez,I−Kozul,Z/Solin CRO 1999, Black gets a big attack on the a−file.

b) 11.£e1 h6 (11...¥e7 12.e5 (12.¥xf6 ¥xf6 13.e5 ¥e7 14.exd6 ¥xd6 15.f5 £e7 16.fxe6 fxe6

17.¤e4 ¥f4+ 18.¢b1 0-0 19.¥d3 a5 20.h4 ¦ae8 21.£e2² Guseinov,K−Smirnov,A/St Petersburg RUS 2000, White has the better structure.) 12...¤d5 13.¥xe7 £xe7 14.¤e4 dxe5 15.fxe5 0-0 16.¥d3 ¤f4 17.¦f1 ¤g6 18.£g3 £h4 19.£xh4 ¤xh4 20.g3 ¤f5 21.¦de1 ¦ac8= Salas,C−Yermolinsky,A/Istanbul TUR 2000.) 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.g3 £e7 14.¥g2 £b7 15.f5 ¥e7 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.¦f1 b4 18.¤b1 ¦c8 19.¤d2 ¥a4 20.¤b3 £c7 21.¦f2 ¥xb3 22.axb3 £a5 23.¢b1= Matulovic,M−Vuckovic,B/Belgrade YUG 2001.

c) 11.e5 dxe5 12.£e1 £c7 13.¥xf6 gxf6 14.£h4 ¥e7 15.f5 exf5 16.¥e2 ¦c8 17.a3 e4³ Raguz,I−Madl,I/Pula CRO 1999, White doesn't have enough for the sacrificed material.

11...¥e7 12.¥xf6 ¥xf6 13.e5 ¥e7 14.exd6 ¥xd6 15.¤e4 ¥xe4 16.£xe4 0-0 17.¥d3 g6 18.h4 £f6 19.¦df1 (19.g3 ¦fd8 20.h5 ¥f8= Schmidt Schaeffer,S−Atalik,S/Boblinger GER 2000.) 19...¦fd8 20.g4 (20.h5 ¥f8 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.g4 ¥g7∓ Santo Roman,M−Palac,M/Cannes FRA 2000.) 20...¥f8 21.f5 exf5 22.gxf5 ¥g7 23.c3 b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9p+-+-wqp+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9-zp-+Q+-zP0 9+-zPL+-+-0 9PzP-+-+-+0 9+-mK-+R+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

24.¥c4 g5 25.hxg5 £xg5+ 26.¢b1 £f6 27.£h4 bxc3 28.£xf6 ¥xf6= Smirin,I−

Palac,M/Batumi GEO 1999. 10.£e1 ¤xd4 11.¦xd4 £b6 12.£d2 (12.¦d3 b4 13.¤d1 ¥c6 14.¥xf6 gxf6 15.¤e3 ¦a7 16.¤g4 ¥e7

17.f5 £c5 18.¦f3 e5 19.¤h6 ¦c7³ Morrison,W−Fedorowicz,J/World Open 2001, the h6 knight is misplaced.) 12...b4 13.¤d1 a5 14.¤e3 ¥c6 15.¤c4 £c5 16.¤xd6+ ¥xd6

38

17.¦xd6 ¥xe4 18.¦d4 ¥d5 19.¥xf6 gxf6 20.¢b1 ¢e7 21.¥e2 ¦a7 22.¦d1 ¦d8 23.g3² Breznik,K−Grosar,K/Ljubljana CRO 2000.

10.¥xb5 axb5 11.¤dxb5 ¤b4! This move takes the air out of White's idea, 12.¥xf6 (12.¤xd6+ ¥xd6 13.£xd6 ¤xa2+ 14.¤xa2 ¦xa2∓ White is clearly on the defensive.) 12...gxf6 13.a3 ¤a2+ 14.¤xa2 ¥xb5 15.¤b4 ¥e7∓ Bailey−Fedorowicz Brantford Canada 2002.

10...gxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+-+l+p+p0 9p+nzppzp-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-sNPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.¢b1

11.¤xc6 ¥xc6 12.£e1 The point of White playing £e1 in this variation is to set up ¤d5 ideas.

a) 12.¥d3 £b6 13.¦he1 h5 14.¢b1 0-0-0 15.¤e2 ¢b8 16.c4 bxc4 17.¥xc4 ¥xe4+ 18.¢a1 d5 19.¤c3 ¥b4 20.£e2³ Heymann,U−Sudakova,I/Warsaw POL 2001.

b) 12.£e3!? This move was popular in the mid seventies, but fell out of favor. 12...£e7! an established way to prevent any problems with ¤d5, 13.¥d3 £a7 (13...h5!? 14.¢b1 £a7 15.£h3 £c5 with good play on the dark squares in Gashimov,V−Kotronias,V/World Team Championship, Bursa 2010) 14.£e1! This looks preferable to the £h3 alternative. White keeps the ¤d5 ideas alive. (14.£h3 b4 15.¤e2 £c5 16.f5 e5 17.¤g3 a5 18.¤h5 ¥h6+ 19.¢b1 ¥g5 20.£g4 (20.£f3 ¢e7 21.h4 ¥e3 22.¦h3

¥d4 Black has dark square business going.) 20...¢e7 21.h4 ¥h6 22.¦h3÷ Torre−Gheorghiu Manila 1976) 14...¦c8?! I know the point of this line is to delay ¥e7 with the hope the bishop can find a more active post. ( Here Black should bite the bullet and play 14...¥e7!? 15.¢b1 (15.f5 £c5 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.¢b1² The ¤e2 to f4 maneuver follows pounding on e6 while looking at d5.) 15...b4 16.¤e2 £c5 with a reasonable Rauzer position.) 15.¤d5 ¥g7 Is the bishop so wonderful here? 16.£g3 ¢f8 17.¤e3 h5 18.¦he1 h4 19.£g4² Black's forces are uncoordinated and the dark square counterplay is non existent, Brkic,A−Kozul,Z/Bled SLO 2002.

12...h5 (12...b4 13.¤d5 a5 14.¥d3 ¥g7 15.f5 ¥xd5 16.exd5 e5 17.¥b5+ White's light−squared play is better than Black's on the dark squares. 17...¢e7 18.¥a4 £b6 19.¦d3² Anka,E−Yrjola,J/Helsinki FIN 2000., 12...¦a7!? we've seen this move numerous times, mostly

39

from black side Rauzer hero Zdenko Kozul, Fluvia Poyatos,J−Aloma Vidal,R/Barcelona ESP 2004) 13.¢b1 ¥h6?! 14.g3 b4 15.¤d5 a5 16.¥g2 0-0 17.¤e3 £b6 18.¦xd6 ¦ad8 19.¦xd8 ¦xd8 20.£e2 £c5© Black is very active and can look forward to dark−squared play, Acs,P−Kozul,Z/Ohrid MKD 2001.

11.g3 This looks too slow to bother Black. 11...£b6 12.¤f3 0-0-0 13.¥h3 h5 14.¢b1 ¢b8 15.¤e2 ¥c8 16.f5 ¥h6 17.¤f4 d5 18.exd5 e5 19.£c3 ¤e7³ Ziatdinov,R−Fedorowicz,J/San Francisco USA 2000.

11...£b6

11...b4 12.¤ce2 £b6 13.f5 (13.£e1 a5 14.£h4 ¥e7 15.¤xc6 £xc6 16.f5 ¦c8 17.¦d2 £c5³

Holzke,F−Baklan,V/Hamburg GER 1999., 13.¤xc6 ¥xc6 14.f5 e5 15.¤g3 £c5 Black prevents Bc4 when White gets light−squared play, Najer,E−Miton,K/Moscow RUS 2004) 13...¤xd4 (13...e5!? in my opinion this will save Black a lot of time.) 14.¤xd4 e5 15.¤f3 Efimenko,Z−Andreev,E/Kramatorsk UKR 2003.

12.¤xc6

12.¤ce2 h5 13.¤xc6 ¥xc6 14.f5 e5? usually White has to work for control of d5, 15.¤c3 ¦c8 16.¤d5 ¥xd5 17.£xd5± Balinov,I−Kozul,Z/Charleville FRA 2000.

12.¤f3 0-0-0 13.g3 ¢b8 14.f5 ¥c8 15.fxe6 (15.¥h3 ¥g7 16.£e1 ¦he8 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.¤e2 ¤e5

19.¤fd4 d5 20.exd5 ¦xd5 21.¥g2 ¦d6 22.£f2 f5= Sedlak,N−Damljanovic,B/Subotica YUG 2000.) 15...fxe6 16.¥h3 ¥g7 17.¤e2 d5 18.£d3 dxe4 19.£xe4 f5 Black's bishop pair gives good play. 20.£f4+ £c7 21.£xc7+ ¢xc7= Govedarica,R−Damljanovic,B/Belgrade YUG 2000.

12...¥xc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+-+-+p+p0 9pwqlzppzp-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.£e1

13.f5 is examined in Milen Petrov analysis/2009.

40

13...¦a7!?

This is the speciality of Bosnian GM Zdenko Kozul. The point is that on ¤d5 Black blocks exd5+ with ...¦e7.

13...¥e7 14.¥d3 (14.f5 £c5 (14...b4 15.¤e2 e5 16.¤g3 h5 17.h4 ¥f8?! (17...£c5 looks ok)

18.¥c4 ¦c8 19.£e2 ¢e7 20.¤xh5 £c5 21.b3 ¥h6 22.¦h3 a5 23.g4 a4 24.¤xf6+− Yoos,J−Khassanov,M/Brantford CAN 1999.) 15.fxe6 (15.¥d3 a5 (15...£e5?! the queen looks nice here, but leaves the queen−side unprotected, 16.£f2 ¦g8?! A complete waste of time. (16...£c5!? Sometimes swallowing your pride is necessary.) 17.¦he1 b4 18.¤e2 a5 19.¤f4 a4 20.¥c4 a3 21.¤d3 £xh2 22.£b6± Nijboer,F−Alekseev,E/Hoogeveen NED 2002 Black's position is seriously uncoordinated.) 16.¤e2 e5 17.£g3 ¢f8 18.£h4 h6 19.¦hf1 a4 20.c3 a3 21.b3 ¦d8 22.£f2= Charbonneau,P−Krush,I/Montreal CAN 2001.) 15...fxe6 16.¥d3 ¢d7 17.¦f1 ¦ag8 18.¦f2 ¦g5 19.¤e2 ¦hg8 20.£f1 ¦e5 when White can't hit e6 Black is fine, 21.¦f4 a5 22.g3 b4 23.¤g1 a4 24.¤f3 a3 25.£g1 £xg1 26.¦xg1³ Bojkovic,N−Madl,I/Halle GER 2000.) 14...h5 (14...a5?! I don't like to weaken the light squares like this. 15.f5 b4

16.¤e2 e5 17.¤g3 £c5 18.£e2 ¦c8 19.b3 0-0 20.¥c4 ¢h8 21.¦he1 ¦g8 22.£h5 ¥e8 23.£h6

£b6 24.¤h5± Adams,M−Kozul,Z/Belgrade 1999.) 15.f5 b4 (15...£c5 16.¦f1 b4 17.¤e2

e5 18.¤c1 a5 19.¤b3 £b6 20.¥c4² DEEP FRITZ−DEEP JUNIOR/Cadaques ESP 2001.) 16.¤e2 e5 17.¤g3 h4 18.¤f1 £b7 (18...£c5 19.¤e3 a5 20.¥c4 ¥xe4 21.¥d5 ¥xd5 22.¦xd5

£c6 23.£e2© Perunovic,M−Damljanovic,B/Valjevo YUG 2000, in return for the sacrificed pawn White gets light−squared control.) 19.¤d2 a5 20.¥c4 a4 21.£e2 ¦a5 22.¦he1 ¦c5 23.b3 a3= Ivanovic,B−Damljanovic,B/Belgrade YUG 2000, White's king must beware.

13...£c5 14.¥d3 ¥d7 15.¦f1 b4 16.¤e2 a5 17.f5 e5 18.b3 h5 19.£h4 ¢e7 20.¥c4² Fressinet,L−Acs,P/Charleville FRA 2000.

13...0-0-0 14.¥d3 b4 15.¤e2 d5 16.¤g3 dxe4 17.¥xe4 (17.¤xe4 ¥e7 18.£e2 ¢b8 19.¤d2 ¦hg8

20.¤f3 ¥b5= Belotti,B−Tukmakov,V/Mendrisio SUI 1999, Black is solid.) 17...¦xd1+ 18.£xd1 f5 19.¥xc6 £xc6 20.£d4 ¦g8 21.¦d1 ¥e7 22.£a7 ¦d8 23.¦xd8+ ¢xd8 24.£d4+ Orak,L−Tukmakov,V/Pula CRO 2000, Black has everything covered and White has back−rank trouble.

14.f5

41

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+kvl-tr0 9tr-+-+p+p0 9pwqlzppzp-+0 9+p+-+P+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9+K+RwQL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.¥d3 h5 (14...¦c7 15.f5 e5 16.£h4 ¥e7 17.£h6 b4 18.¤d5 ¥xd5 19.exd5 a5 20.£g7 ¦f8 21.£xh7 ¥d8

22.h4 a4 23.£g7 b3 24.cxb3 axb3 25.a3± Nataf,I−Kozul,Z/Istanbul TUR 2000., 14...a5?!

loosens b5 for no good reason, Jedryczka,K−Kozul,Z/Panormo GRE 2001) 15.£h4 ¥g7 (15...¦h6!? An interesting way to defend h6. Previously we've seen 15...¥g7 or 15...¥e7. One of the points of this variation is to leave the bishop on f8. Later on Black might have the option of ...¥g7 or ...¥h6 placing the bishop on a more active diagonal. The danger of the rook on h6 is it could wind−up out of play. 16.f5 £c5

17.¦he1?! White waited too long. 17 fe6 fe6 18 Rhe1 with ¤d5 ideas looks good for White. 17...e5!? 18.¥e2 ¦c7 Black loads up on c2 thus preventing a rook recapture on d5 19.¦d2 b4 20.¤d5 ¥xd5 21.exd5 Black is ok here, but the Rh6 looks out of it. 21...a5

22.¥f1 ¦h7² Almasi,Z−Topalov,V/Monaco MNC 2002) 16.¦hf1 £c5 17.f5 e5 18.¦f3 ¦c7 19.¦g3 ¢f8 20.a3? This hands Black a ready−made attack (20.¤e2!?) 20...a5 21.¤e2 b4 22.axb4 axb4 23.¤c1 ¥a4∓ Kotronias,V−Kozul,Z/Leon ESP 2001.

14...h5

14...£c5 15.¥d3 ¥h6 a) 15...a5 16.¤e2 ¥h6 17.¦f1 e5 18.¤g3 ¢e7 19.¦f3 ¦g8 20.£e2² was Benjamin−

Kozul Lucerne 1997, with a slow, but effective build−up for White b) 15...b4 16.¤e2 e5 (16...¥h6!? David,A−Kozul,Z/Istanbul TUR 2003) 17.¤g3 h5

18.h4 a5 19.£e2 ¢e7 20.¤xh5 a4 21.g4 a3 22.¥c4 ¦c7 23.¥b3± was Borriss−Kozul Munich 1993, Black has zero activity.

16.fxe6 fxe6 17.¤d5 ¦f7 18.b4 £a7 19.£c3!± Zelcic,R−Kozul,Z/Bled SLO 2000.

15.¥d3

15.fxe6 fxe6 16.¥d3 ¦g7 17.¦f1 ¥e7 18.¤e2 h4 19.¦f2 ¦h5 20.¤f4 ¦e5 21.¦e2 ¦g4 22.£f1 £c5 23.¦de1 ¥d7= Palac,M−Kozul,Z/Pula CRO 1999.

15.£h4 ¥e7 16.¤e2 (16.fxe6 fxe6 17.¥e2 £c5 18.¥f3 a5 19.¦he1 ¢d8 20.£h3 ¥d7 21.e5 fxe5 22.¤e4

£b6 23.£g3 a4 24.£g7 ¦f8 25.¥xh5 a3 26.b3÷ Rajlich,V−Balogh,C/Budapest HUN 1999.) 16...¦c7 17.¤d4 ¥d7 18.¥e2 e5 19.¤b3 a5 20.¥xh5 ¢f8 21.¦d3 ¥e8 22.¤d2 b4 23.¦c1 ¥b5 24.c4 bxc3 25.¦dxc3 ¦xc3 26.¦xc3 ¥d8 27.g4∓ Breder,D−Kozul,Z/Bled SLO 2001, White's bishop is out−of−play after this.

42

15...b4

15...a5 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.£f1 b4 18.¤d5? White is attacking from long distance so how can this possibly work? 18...exd5 19.exd5 ¥xd5 20.£xf6 ¦g8 21.¥g6+ ¦xg6 22.£xg6+ ¥f7-+ Paramos Dominguez,R−Palac,M/Skopje MKD 2002.

16.¤e2 e5 17.£h4 ¥e7

17...¢e7 18.¤g3 ¥h6 19.£xh5 £c5 20.¦he1 a5 21.b3 ¥b5 22.¥xb5 £xb5 23.¤f1 a4 24.¤e3 ¥xe3 25.£xh8 axb3 26.cxb3 ¥f2„ Tiviakov,S−Kozul,Z/Bugojno BIH 1999.

18.g4

18.¤g3 £c5 19.¤xh5 ¢d8 20.g4 a5 21.¦hf1 Kotronias,V−Damljanovic,B/Leon ESP 2001. A typical Rauzer situation. White is up on material, but Black is working on the dark squares.

18...a5 19.gxh5 a4 20.h6 ¦h7 21.¦hg1 £e3 22.¦g8+ ¢d7 23.£e1 ¦b7 24.£g1 £xg1 25.¦dxg1 ¦xh6³

Svoboda,S−Manik,M/Presov SVK 2001.

43

Rauzer with 9 f3 [B67]

Last updated: 17/07/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 a6 8.0-0-0 ¥d7 9.f3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+p+l+pzpp0 9p+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This line continues to give Black a massive headache. With e4 defended Black's

counterplay is controlled.

9...¥e7

A natural move, but there are many others: 9...¦c8 10.¢b1 a) 10.¤xc6 ¥xc6 (10...¦xc6 11.h4 £a5!? This makes more sense than pushing on the

queenside. 12.¢b1 h6 13.¥e3 h5 14.¥e2 ¥e7 15.¤d5 £xd2 16.¤xf6+ ¥xf6= Bubalovic,D−Kozul,Z/Bizovac CRO 2001.) 11.¢b1 ¥e7 (11...b5 12.¤e2 ¥b7 13.¤d4 h6 14.¥xf6 £xf6

15.a4 bxa4 16.£b4 £e7 17.¥xa6 ¥xa6 18.£xa4+ £d7 19.£xa6 ¥e7 20.£b5± Smirin,I−Kozul,Z/Solin CRO 1999, White has a safe clear pawn.) 12.h4 b5 (after 12...0-0

13.¤e2 d5? 14.e5 ¤d7 15.f4 Black is in one horrible looking French Defense position, Kritz,L−Kozul,Z, Istanbul TUR 2003) 13.¥d3 0-0 14.¤e2 ¤d7 15.¤g3 ¤c5 16.¥e2 f6 17.¥f4 ¤b7 18.¤f1 £b6 19.¤e3± Luther,T−Kozul,Z/Nova Gorica SLO 2000, Black's position is discombulated.

b) 10.h4! This is White's best. Black's counterplay is lagging. 10...h6 11.¥e3 h5!? This puts an end to the pawn storm and forces White to play in the center. 12.¤b3 b5 13.£f2 £c7 14.¢b1 ¦b8 15.¥g5 ¤e5 16.f4 ¤eg4 17.£f3 b4 18.¤e2 ¥e7 19.¤g3 a5 This push becomes ineffective as Black can't pry−open the queenside.

44

20.¤d2 g6 21.¤c4 ¥c6 22.¥d3 0-0 23.£e2 Escaping the pin, now e5 and f5 ideas are on the agenda. 23...d5 24.exd5 ¤xd5 25.¥xg6!± Shirov,A−Damljanovic,B/Batumi GEO 1999.

c) 10.¥e3 ¤xd4 11.¥xd4 b5 12.g4 ¥c6 13.g5 ¤d7 14.h4 b4 15.¤b1?! (15.¤e2 keeps b1 for the king.) 15...£a5 16.a3 d5= Socko,B−Blehm,P/Warsaw POL 2001.

10...¥e7 11.h4 h6 (11...h5!? 12.¤xc6 (12.¤de2 ¤e5 13.¤g3 b5 14.¥d3 £b6 15.¦he1 b4 16.¤ce2

a5 17.¤c1 ¥b5 18.f4 ¤xd3 19.¤xd3 ¤g4 20.¥xe7 ¢xe7 21.e5 ¥xd3 22.exd6+± Nijboer,F−Peek,M/Amsterdam NED 2001, Black's king is in bad shape.) 12...¦xc6 13.¥d3 (13.¤e2 b5 14.¤f4 ¦c8 15.¥d3 ¥c6 16.£e1 £b6 17.£g3 b4 as is usual in this line Black struggles for a plan. 18.¦he1 e5 19.¤h3 ¢f8 20.¤f2± Mrdja,M−Pantaleoni,C/Saint Vincent ITA 2000.) 13...b5 14.¦he1 b4?! after this Black is in serious trouble. (14...£a5!? is the best chance) 15.¤e2 £b6 16.¤f4 a5 17.e5! dxe5 18.¤g6 fxg6 19.¥xf6 gxf6 20.¥xg6+ ¢f8 21.£xd7+− Shabalov,A−Fedorowicz,J/Seattle USA 2000.) 12.¥e3 h5! Best play in this variation. It took a long time to figure it out, but the mission was accomplished, 13.¤xc6 (13.¥d3 ¤e5 14.¦he1 b5 15.a3 ¦b8 16.f4 ¤c4

17.¥xc4 bxc4 18.¢a2² Pavlovic,M−Damljanovic,B/Subotica YUG 2000, White defends b2 easily then can play for a central break.) 13...¥xc6 14.¤e2 (14.¥f4 d5 15.e5

¤d7 16.¤e2 ¥b5 17.¤d4 ¥xf1 18.¦dxf1 ¤b8 Black has a solid game here, but no active play, Korneev,O−Spraggett,K/Seville ESP 2004) 14...d5!? This worked out reasonably well for Black. For a change! It's also Black's last chance for anything decent. 15.e5 ¤d7 16.f4 ¥b5 (16...g6 17.¤d4 ¥xh4 18.¥d3 ¦g8 19.g4 hxg4 20.£h2 ¦h8=

Spraggett,K−Chandler,M/Santo Antonio POR 2001.) 17.g3 g6 18.¥g2 (18.¤c1 ¥xf1

19.¦hxf1 b5 Black has all the play here. White is in no shape for the g4 break, Predojevic,B−Kozul,Z/Sarajevo BIH 2004) 18...¥xe2 19.£xe2 £c7 20.¦d3 ¤c5 21.¦c3 £d7 22.¥xc5 ¥xc5 23.¦d1 b5 White has no way to open the position. 24.¥f1 ¢e7= Ponomariov,R−Topalov,V, Leon ESP 2003 Black didn't get any active play, but was solid like a rock.

9...£c7 10.¢b1 ¦b8?! It's hard to see the point of this move. 11.f4 b5 12.¤xc6 £xc6 13.¥xf6 gxf6 14.¥d3 (14.£e1!? ¥e7 15.¥d3 Is a big difference over the game.) 14...b4 15.¤e2 h5 16.£e1 a5 17.£h4 a4 18.£xf6? White's greed gives Black the better game. 18...¦g8 19.g3 ¥g7 20.£g5 ¢f8! 21.£xh5 ¦h8 22.£f3 £c5∓ Filipenko,A−Kozul,Z/Nova Gorica SLO 2000, White was a bit greedy, now Black gets an attack on the dark squares.

9...b5 10.¤xc6 ¥xc6 11.¤e2! this idea causes Black great problems. Where can Black generate any type of distraction? (11.¥d3 is less effective, Sedlak,N−Thorfinnsson,B/Reykjavik ISL 2004) 11...¥e7 12.¤d4 ¥b7 13.h4 0-0 14.¢b1 ¦c8 15.¥d3 (15.g4 ¦c7 16.¥d3 ¦e8 17.c3?! White would be better off not touching his queenside. 17...g6 18.£h2 e5 19.¤c2 £c8 20.¤e3 ¢g7 21.¦dg1 ¦h8 22.h5+− Feher,G−Bromberger,S/Miercurea Ciuc ROM 2000, White's attack is rolling.) 15...¤d7 (15...£c7 16.g4 ¦fd8 17.¥e3 d5 18.e5! ¤d7 19.f4 ¤b6 20.£e2 ¤c4 21.¥c1± Blehm,P−Arutunian,D/Yerevan ARM 1999.) 16.f4 ¤c5 17.¥xe7 £xe7 18.£e3 £c7 19.h5 ¦fe8 20.h6 g6 21.¥xb5 axb5 22.¤xb5 £c6 23.¤xd6± Nijboer,F−Hoeksema,E/Rotterdam NED 1999, Black's king is looking mighty airy.

9...h5 10.f4 ¥e7 11.¥e2 b5 12.¥f3 ¦c8 13.¤xc6 ¥xc6 14.¦he1 b4 15.¥xf6 gxf6 16.¤e2 £a5 17.¢b1 h4 18.¤d4 ¥a8 19.£f2 £c5 20.£d2 ¢f8 21.¥g4 £b6 22.¥f3 ¥b7

45

23.¦c1 a5³ Bonanno,A−Hitzgerova,G/Milan ITA 2000, Black does well to get into a normal Bxf6 gxf6 Rauzer.

9...¦b8 10.g4 b5 11.¥e3 ¤xd4 12.¥xd4 b4 13.¤e2 e5 14.¥a7 ¦b7 15.¥e3 ¥e6 16.¢b1 a5 17.g5 ¤d7 18.f4 g6 19.h4 a4 20.h5± Gunnarsson,J−Damaso,R/Leon ESP 2001, Black's development is lagging.

9...£a5?! An experiment due to fail. I see a hasty retreat in this queen's future. 10.¥e3! g4, g5 is on White's mind, as is menacing the Qa5 with Qf2 ideas (10.h4!? h6 11.¥e3 ¤xd4

12.£xd4 Inarkiev,E−Del Rio Angelis,S/Istanbul TUR 2003) 10...b5 11.¤xc6 ¥xc6 12.¢b1 ¥e7 Yet another problem for Black. Castling is met by Nd5 shots. 13.g4 ¦c8 14.¥d3 ¤d7 15.g5 ¤c5 16.h4 b4 17.¤e2 ¤a4 18.¤d4 ¥b5 19.h5 0-0 20.f4 Korneev,O−Damaso,R/Santo Antonio POR 2002 White's pawn storm is more dangerous than anything Black can muster.

10.h4

10.¥e3 b5 11.g4 ¤xd4 12.£xd4 e5 13.£d2 b4 14.¤d5 ¤xd5 15.exd5 a5 16.¢b1 0-0 17.¥d3 f5!?= Soltanici,R−Arutunian,D/Litohoto GRE 1999, Black can get counterplay on the f−file. Pawns on f3 or e4 are potential targets.

10.g4!? If Black's ...h5 after White's h4 catches on and is ok for Black then this becomes an important alternative. White threatens the pawn storm in a different way. 10...h5 (10...£c7 11.h4 ¤e5 12.¥e3 b5 13.£g2 b4 14.¤ce2 Is interesting.) 11.gxh5 Not much choice here. 11...¤xh5 (11...¦xh5?! Doesn't accomplish much. 12.h4 ¦h8 13.¤ce2 b5

14.¤g3²) 12.¥xe7 £xe7 13.¤de2 g5 14.¦g1 (14.£xd6 £xd6 15.¦xd6 ¤e5 16.¥g2 ¢e7

17.¦dd1 ¦ag8© Is fine for Black. It's the normal Sicilian compensation with a strong knight on e5 and activity.) 14...¤e5 15.£e3 ¦c8 16.¦xg5 ¤c4 17.£g1 £f6!? Now white has some tactical tries. 18.e5 £h6 19.f4 dxe5 20.¤e4 ¤f6 21.¤2c3 ¢e7 22.¢b1? Lane,G−Wells,P/Torquay ENG 2002, after this Black is much better, (22.fxe5! ¤h7 23.£d4 ¦c7 24.h4± White has a strong attack.)

10.¢b1 0-0 11.h4 £b8!? the point of this is to play ...¦c8 first then ...¤e5, see Shabalov,A−Kozul,Z/Calvia ESP 2004.

10...h6!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+p+lvlpzp-0 9p+nzppsn-zp0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+P+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

46

This idea is starting to look so good we might see people switching back to 9 f4! Alternatives: 10...¦c8?! This allows White to capture on c6 immediately. 11.¤xc6! If White can force

Black to recapture with a piece on c6 then he should. The follow up would be the usual Ne2 to d4 routine. (11.g4 ¤e5 (11...h5 12.gxh5 ¤xh5 13.¦g1 ¤xd4 14.£xd4 ¦c6!?

15.¥xe7 £xe7 16.¦g5 similar to the game mentioned above, Lane−P Wells British Championship Torquay 2002, 16...£f6 17.e5 £h6 18.f4 f6 19.exf6 gxf6 20.¦xh5 £xh5³

L'Ami,E−Jens,J/Dieren NED 2002, with alert defense Black should be somewhat better) 12.¥e3! White's g5 is on it's way. 12...h6? Violating the chess rule... "don't weaken yourself on the side you're being attacked on." This amounts to a wasted move since it doesn't discourage g5. 13.¥e2 b5 14.a3 White breaks the above mentioned rule as well, but to secure the Nc3. 14...£c7 15.g5 ¤h5 16.f4 ¤c4 17.¥xc4 £xc4 18.f5 a5 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.gxh6 gxh6 (20...b4!? was the only try)

21.£g2!+− Chow,A−Elkins,J/Chicago USA 2002 ) 11...¦xc6 12.g4 b5 (12...£a5

13.¢b1 b5 14.¥d3 b4 15.¤e2 e5 16.¤g3 ¥e6 17.b3 £b6 18.¥e3 £b7 19.g5 ¤d7 20.¤f5 ¥f8

21.f4 g6 22.¤d4!± Sax,G−Htun Lynn Kyaw/Istanbul TUR 2000.) 13.¤e2! This redeploying the knight causes black the most problems. 13...h6 14.¥e3 e5!? Black prevents Nd4,but gives white other pleasant choices. 15.¤g3 (15.¤c3!? £a5 16.¢b1

¥e6 17.¤d5 £xd2 18.¦xd2² One way or another White will acquire the bishop pair.) 15...¥e6 16.¢b1 h5 17.g5 ¤d7 18.f4!? Opening up the position makes sense. (18.¤f5

¥f8 19.¥f2 g6 20.¤e3² Is another decent try.) 18...exf4 19.¥xf4 g6 20.¤e2 ¤c5 21.¤d4± Nemeth,M−Maximov,D/Balatonlelle HUN 2002 White will have ¤xe6, taking the bishop pair at the very least.

10...£c7 11.¢b1 h6!? I guess it makes sense to send the bishop back to e3 before playing h5. (11...¤xd4 12.£xd4 from this dominating central post the white queen keeps an eye on important matters. 12...b5 13.g4 ¦b8 14.£d2 ¥c6 15.¤e2 ¥b7 16.¤d4 h5 17.gxh5 ¦xh5

18.¥h3 ¥c8 19.¤e2 b4 20.¥g2 a5 21.f4 ¥b7 22.¤g3 ¦h8 23.h5± Zubarev,A−Kalygin,S/Alushta UKR 2000.) 12.¥e3 h5 This forces White to play in the center which is one good thing. White's play when g4 is allowed has become very routine. 13.¥d3 this doesn't look too frightening. As long as Black keeps an eye on White's e5 break then things are under control: (13.¤xc6!? ¥xc6 14.¥g5 So,W−Sasikiran,K/New Delhi 2011.) 13...¤e5!? (13...b5?! runs into the usual plan 14.¤xc6

¥xc6 15.¤e2 e5 16.¥g5 White's going to gain light square control.) 14.¥g5 (14.f4?! Too fast 14...¤eg4 15.¥g1 b5 Black should be ok here. White's rook on h1 and bishop on g1 look weird.) 14...b5 Checkout the game Shabalov−Fedorowicz USA championship 2000. In that game white blasted through in the center with a well timed e5. I feel if black keeps that break under control the position will be ok. 15.f4 (15.¦he1 b4 16.¤ce2

a5 17.¤g3 g6! keeping the knights out of f5, and preparing ...e5, see Beshukov,S−Jens,J/Hoogeveen NED 2003) 15...¤c4!? Walks the highwire. (15...¤eg4 Keeping a wary eye on e5. 16.¦hf1 £b7 17.¦de1 £b6 18.¤f3 b4 19.¤d1 e5!?³ Mista,A−Czarnota,P/Trzebinia POL 2002 No more e5 ideas for white so black is alive and well.) 16.¥xc4 £xc4 17.e5 b4 forced 18.exf6 bxc3 19.fxg7 ¦g8 20.£xc3 £xc3 21.bxc3 f6 22.¥h6 ¢f7 Looks pretty good for black.

10...¤xd4 11.£xd4 £a5 12.¢b1 ¥c6 13.£d2 £c7 14.¤e2 h6 15.¥e3 d5 16.e5 ¤d7 17.f4 h5 18.¤d4² Lanka,Z−Heinbuch,D/Castrop Rauxel GER 1999.

47

10...b5 11.¤xc6 ¥xc6 12.g4 (12.¥d3 h6 13.¥e3 ¤d7 14.£f2 £c7 15.¢b1 ¤e5 16.¤e2 ¥b7 17.¥b6

£c6 18.¥d4 ¦c8 19.¦c1 h5 20.¦he1 b4 Black is searching for active counterchances. 21.£g3² Beshukov,S−Conquest,S/Hastings ENG 2001.) 12...h6 (12...£a5 13.¢b1 h6?!

Unless this is well timed black should avoid this push. 14.¥e3 ¤d7 15.£f2 ¦c8 16.¦g1

b4 17.¤e2 d5 18.¤d4 dxe4 19.¤xc6 ¦xc6 20.fxe4± Mongontuul,B−Pina,S/Bled SLO 2002 Black's king is in bad shape..) 13.¥e3 b4 14.¤e2 £a5 15.¢b1 e5 16.¤g3 d5 17.¤f5 ¥f8 18.¥h3 d4 19.g5± White's initiative is out of control. 19...hxg5 Stefansson,H−Jandovsky,V/Pardubice CZE 2000.

10...h5!? I'm sticking to my guns on this idea or 10...h6 11 Be3 h5. One or the other. As of March 16th 2003 it seems that I was right! Just joking of course. 11.¥c4?! Doesn't this just expose the bishop and give Black time? 11...¤a5! This does several things. In addition to attacking the bishop it puts and end to the annoying ¤xc6, then ¤e2 to d4 idea, see Weinzettl,E−Cabrilo,G/Belgrade YUG 2002.

11.¥e3 h5! 12.¥g5

Black has gained an important tempo. 12.¢b1 ¤e5 This may save an important tempo over the above (12...£c7!? followed by

¤e5 which looks reasonable. I've been working on this line. 13.¥d3 ¤e5 14.¦he1 b5 15.f4 b4 16.¤ce2 ¤c4?! (16...¤eg4! Black is fine after this. The kingside is under control and white's e5 break is done for awhile.) 17.¥xc4 £xc4 18.¤g3 Black doesn't have anything active. 18...¦b8 19.¢a1² Shabalov,A−Fedorowicz,J/Millenium Chess Festival Virginia Beach Exhibition game 2003 I took black in this game to practice this line. Shabalov plays very well in this variation. White's play is easier to see than Black's.) 13.¥g5 b5 14.£e1 b4 15.¤ce2 a5 16.¤g3 £b6 17.¥e2 ¦c8 18.¤f1 ¤c4 19.¤e3 ¤xe3 20.¥xe3 Black's q−side demonstration is a bust. 20...£b8 21.¥a6 ¦c7 22.£g3 0-0 23.¥h6± Stefansson,H−Damljanovic,B/Leon ESP 2001.

12...£c7

12...¤e5! 13.£e1!? (13.¢b1 £c7 transposes to the mainline) 13...£c7 Ledger,D−Avrukh,B/European Club Cup, Plovdiv 2010.

13.¢b1 ¤e5

48

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+pwqlvlpzp-0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+-+-sn-vLp0 9-+-sNP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPPwQ-+P+0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.f4

Loosening White's position up, but since the g4 pawn storm is prevented White has to try this.

14...¤eg4

Black's knights prevent all kinds of stuff. 14...¤c4? 15.¥xc4 £xc4 16.e5±

15.g3 b5

Black has matters under control.

16.¥g2 b4 17.¤ce2 ¤f2 18.e5 ¦c8 19.exf6 gxf6 20.¥h6 ¤xh1 21.¥xh1 ¦xh6∓

Naiditsch,A−Acs,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2003 White doesn't have anything for the exchange.

49

Rauzer − 8...Bd7 9 f4 Be7 [B69]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 a6 8.0-0-0 ¥d7 9.f4 ¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+p+lvlpzpp0 9p+nzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.¤f3 b5 11.¥xf6

11.e5!? b4 12.exf6 bxc3 13.£xc3 gxf6 14.¥h4 d5 Heinemann,T−Chandler,M/Solingen GER 2001 [B68].

11...gxf6

50

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+-+lvlp+p0 9p+nzppzp-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.¥d3

12.¢b1

12...£b6?!

12...£a5 is best, 13.¢b1 b4 14.¤e2

13.¦he1

Kutuzovic,B−Jankovic,A/Bizovac CRO 2001.

51